DERMATOPHYTOSIS (RINGWORM)

KRISTY L. ZADORA · 2025 · Case ID: A25099549

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from December 1984 to January 1988, appeals the denial of service connection for multiple conditions, including athlete's foot (tinea pedis), a lumbar spine disorder, depression, bilateral foot disorders, a left knee disorder, and a cervical spine disorder. The veteran also claimed depression as secondary to nonservice-connected lumbar spine and cervical spine disorders, and athlete's foot, and claimed the cervical spine disorder as secondary to the lumbar spine disorder. The Board denied all claims, finding that the veteran failed to demonstrate current diagnoses for any of the claimed conditions at any point during the appeal period. The Board noted that while the veteran provided lay testimony and asserted a belief that his conditions were service-related, this evidence was considered non-probative for complex medical determinations. The Board also found that the service treatment records and post-service treatment records were negative for any complaints, treatments, or diagnoses related to the claimed conditions. Consequently, the Board determined that the evidence did not establish the existence of a current disability, a prerequisite for service connection, and therefore denied all claims. The Board also concluded that a VA examination was not warranted as the evidence did not suggest an in-service event, injury, or disease occurred, nor did it indicate a current disorder potentially related to service.

Rationale

No current diagnosis during appeal period; Service treatment records negative; Post-service treatment records negative

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

241219-501934

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25099549
Decision Date: 11/17/25 Archive Date: 11/17/25

DOCKET NO. 241219-501934
DATE: November 17, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot, tinea pedis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for depression as secondary to nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder, nonservice-connected cervical spine disorder and nonservice-connected athlete's foot, tinea pedis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of athlete's foot, tinea pedis and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing of the claim.

2. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of a lumbar spine disorder and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing of the claim.

3. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of depression and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing of the claim.

4. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of a left foot disorder and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing of the claim.

5. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of a right foot disorder and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing of the claim.

6. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of a left knee disorder and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing of the claim.

7. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of a cervical spine disorder and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing of the claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for athlete's foot, tinea pedis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for depression as secondary to nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder, nonservice-connected cervical spine disorder and nonservice-connected athlete's foot, tinea pedis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

4. The criteria for service connection for a left foot disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for a right foot disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from December 1984 to January 1988.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from December 1984 to January 1988.

These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2024 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The rating decision on appeal constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In the December 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the October 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

On February 2, 2025, the Veteran notified VA that he wished to switch from the Evidence Submission docket to the Direct Review docket. See February 2025 Notice of Disagreement. Requests to modify a Notice of Disagreement must be made by completing a new Notice of Disagreement on a form prescribed by the Secretary and must be received at the Board within one year from the date that the agency of original jurisdiction mails notice of the decision on appeal, or within 60 days of the date that the Board receives the Notice of Disagreement, whichever is later. Requests to modify a Notice of Disagreement will not be granted if the appellant has submitted evidence or testimony. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(c). In an April 2025 letter, the Board notified the Veteran that it could not process his request to switch dockets as he had already submitted new evidence. Accordingly, these matters remain on the Evidence Submission docket.

Service Connection Criteria

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). VA has amended 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 to explicitly incorporate the holding in Allen, except that
§ 3.303(d).

Pertinent to a claim for service connection, such a determination requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992). Under applicable regulation, the term "disability" means impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries and their residual conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; see also Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296 (1991); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the term "disability" as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability," and held that "pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability").

In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time he files his claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim. However, in Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013), the Court held that when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a claimant filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency.

The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991).

The veteran can provide competent reports of factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, such as experiencing pain in service, reporting to sick call, being placed on limited duty, and undergoing physical therapy. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a lay person is competent to identify the medical condition (noting that sometimes the lay person will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer), (2) the lay person is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Similarly, laypersons are competent to diagnose and provide nexus opinions to some extent, notably where the diagnosis or opinion is not of a complex nature. Id.; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 U.S.C. § 7104
diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Similarly, laypersons are competent to diagnose and provide nexus opinions to some extent, notably where the diagnosis or opinion is not of a complex nature. Id.; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

1. Entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot, tinea pedis is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder is denied.

3. Entitlement to service connection for depression as secondary to nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder, nonservice-connected cervical spine disorder and nonservice-connected athlete's foot, tinea pedis is denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder is denied.

5. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disorder is denied.

6. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is denied.

7. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder, is denied.

The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and a cervical spine disorder as etiologically related to his active service. See June 2024 Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits (VA Form 21-526EZ). Specifically, the Veteran contends that his athlete's foot, tinea pedis and bilateral foot disorder is due to prolonged periods of wearing combat boots during service, standing and running; that his left knee injury is due to long runs and daily physical training during service; that his lumbar spine disorder is due to running during service, daily physical training and lifting an antenna mast during service; and that his cervical spine disorder is due to lifting an antenna mast during service. Id.; see also December 2024 Correspondence. The Veteran also asserts that his depression is secondary to his nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder, cervical spine disorder and/or athlete's foot, tinea pedis; and that his cervical spine disorder is secondary to his nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder. See June 2024 VA Form 21-526EZ; see also December 2024 Correspondence.

An October 2024 rating decision made a favorable finding for the claims that status as a veteran was verified based on the Veteran's DD Form 214 period of honorable service; the Board is bound by this favorable finding.

Turning to the evidence, service treatment records are negative for complaints of, treatment for, or diagnoses of any condition related to athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder. A November 1987 service treatment record reveals that the Veteran elected not to undergo a medical examination before separation.

Post-service treatment records are negative for complaints of, treatment for, or diagnoses of any condition related to athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder

In the present case, the evidence of record fails to demonstrate current diagnoses related to athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder at any time during the appeal period, and there is no probative evidence of recent diagnoses of such disorders prior to the Veteran's claims. McClain v. Nicholson, supra; Romanowsky v. Shinseki, supra.

The Board acknowledges the Court's holding in Saunders but does not find a basis for determining that there is functional impairment related to a diagnosis of athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder. See Saunders v. Wilkie, supra. The Veteran's treatment records do not show that the Veteran has symptoms which impact his earning capacity as due to his claimed athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder. As such, the Veteran's complaints of athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder do not amount to a functional impairment of earning capacity, and Saunders is not applicable in this case. In addition, the record does not reflect, and the Veteran did not allege, that he suffered from impairment of earning capacity due to his claimed athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder that was of similar severity, frequency, and duration as those VA has determined by regulation would cause impaired earning capacity in an average person. Wait v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 8 (2020).

The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report his own symptoms or matters within his personal knowledge. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, supra; Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006). In addition, laypersons may, in some circumstances, opine on questions of diagnosis and etiology. See Davidson v. Shinseki, supra.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions and sincere belief that he has diagnoses of athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder that are related to service and/or a service connected disability. In this regard, the Veteran is competent to report the type of symptoms that are observable through the five senses. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, a determination as to the appropriate diagnoses of the musculoskeletal symptoms, psychiatric symptoms and dermatological symptoms, and the etiology thereof, is a complex medical determination which goes beyond lay observation of symptoms. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, supra; see also Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462 (2007) (explaining that while the claimant is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg or varicose veins, the claimant is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions). Specifically, where the determinative issue is one of medical causation, only those with specialized medical knowledge, training or experience are competent to provide evidence on the issue. See Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 134, 137 (1994). In this regard, the question of causation involves a medical subject concerning an internal process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship and requires the administration and interpretation of diagnostic testing such as X-rays, mental health testing and dermatological testing. In the instant case, there is no suggestion that the Veteran has had any medical training. As such, the question of etiology in this case may not be competently addressed by lay evidence and the opinions of the Veteran are nonprobative evidence.

The Board emphasizes that Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection for disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131. Thus, where, as here, the probative evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have current diagnoses of athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder for the entire appeal period, there can be no valid claims for service connection. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (service connection cannot be granted if the claimed disability does not exist); Brammer v. Derwinski, supra.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination with respect to the claims. However, a remand for
.S.C. § 1131. Thus, where, as here, the probative evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have current diagnoses of athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder for the entire appeal period, there can be no valid claims for service connection. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (service connection cannot be granted if the claimed disability does not exist); Brammer v. Derwinski, supra.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination with respect to the claims. However, a remand for an examination is not warranted because the McLendon elements necessitating one have not been met. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Specifically, there is insufficient evidence of record suggesting that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or during an applicable presumptive period to warrant an examination. As noted above, the service treatment records are otherwise negative for complaints, treatments or diagnoses related to athlete's foot, tinea pedis, a lumbar spine disorder, depression, a bilateral foot disorder, a left knee disorder and/or a cervical spine disorder. Further, the evidence does not indicate that the Veteran has a current disorder that may be related to his military service. See McLendon v. Nicholson, supra. In this regard, while the Veteran himself has advanced such a theory, a mere conclusory generalized lay statement that service event or illness caused the claimant's current condition is insufficient to require the Secretary to provide an examination. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). The Court has held that VA is not required to provide a medical examination when there is not credible evidence of an event, injury, or disease in service. See Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010). Therefore, the Board finds that a VA examination and/or opinion is not necessary to decide the claims.

(Continued on the next page)

Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for athlete's foot, tinea pedis; service connection for a lumbar spine disorder; service connection for depression as secondary to nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder, nonservice-connected cervical spine disorder and nonservice-connected athlete's foot, tinea pedis; service connection for a left foot disorder; service connection for a right foot disorder; service connection for a left knee disorder; and service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to nonservice-connected lumbar spine disorder, is not warranted. The appeals are denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, supra.

KRISTY L. ZADORA

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board A. Kuhn, Associate Counsel

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer