HERNIA VENTRAL POSTOPERATIVE

Summary

The veteran, who served from May 2010 to November 2021 across multiple periods, appeals the denial of service connection for an umbilical hernia. The veteran claimed the hernia, discovered in April 2024, was related to heavy lifting during service. The Board reviewed the evidence, noting that the veteran's service treatment records were silent regarding any complaints or treatment for a hernia. A separation examination in May 2021 also found no hernias. The only evidence of a hernia was a CT scan in April 2024. The Board found no evidence beyond the veteran's assertions linking the hernia to service, and no post-service medical records offered such an opinion. Although the VA did not obtain a specific medical opinion on the nexus, the Board determined it was not required because there was no competent indication of a service connection prior to the rating decision. The Board cited that the veteran's lay assertions alone were insufficient to trigger a duty to obtain an examination, especially since the cause of a hernia is a complex medical matter outside layperson knowledge. The Board concluded that the weight of the evidence was against a service connection, and therefore, the claim was denied.

Rationale

No evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation; Service treatment records silent regarding hernia; Separation examination normal; No competent medical opinion linking hernia to service

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26034379
Decision Date: 04/14/26	Archive Date: 04/14/26

DOCKET NO. 260103-632434
DATE: April 14, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an umbilical hernia is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record fails to demonstrate a relationship between the Veteran's military service and his umbilical hernia.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for an umbilical hernia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from May 2010 to June 2010, from April 2011 to October 2011, from July 2016 to June 2017, and from February 2021 to November 2021.

In the January 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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 claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

The Board notes that the Veteran listed a number of issues on the January 2026 VA Form 10182 to be appealed that are not part of the instant decision.  Aside from the issue discussed herein, the issues listed in the January 2026 VA Form 10182 were addressed in AOJ decisions spanning from February 2023 to August 2023. Consequently, the January 2026 VA Form 10182 is not timely with respect to the issues sought to be appealed, as a notice of disagreement must be filed by an appellant or a representative within one year "from the date of mailing of notice of the result of initial review or determination." See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1). Although the Board may not dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely VA Form 10182, it may dismiss the appeal due to non-jurisdictional reasons, such as a procedural defect, where the claimant did not substantially comply with proper claims processing rules. See Ferko v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 262, 266 (2024) (stating VA can require a claimant to fill out a particular form and can dismiss nonconforming or untimely filings but a failure to follow claims processing rules does not affect the Board's jurisdiction).  As such, the additional issues listed in the January 2026 VA Form 10182 will not be addressed further.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for an umbilical hernia as a result of his military service.  In his September 2024 claim, the Veteran argued that a hernia discovered in May 2024 was related to heavy lifting during service.

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has an umbilical hernia that began during service or are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.  As will be explained, the Board finds that the weight of the probative evidence is against a finding of a relationship between his claimed disability and his
. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for an umbilical hernia as a result of his military service.  In his September 2024 claim, the Veteran argued that a hernia discovered in May 2024 was related to heavy lifting during service.

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has an umbilical hernia that began during service or are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.  As will be explained, the Board finds that the weight of the probative evidence is against a finding of a relationship between his claimed disability and his military service.

Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records are completely silent for any complaints of, or treatment related to, his claimed disability. In fact, a May 2021 service treatment record specifically noted that no hernias were detected on examination.  Moreover, a November 2022 VA General Medical Examination conducted after his discharge noted that an examination of the abdomen and viscera (including hernias) was normal.

The first evidence of a hernia was an April 2024 VA treatment record, which noted that a CT scan revealed a small fat-containing umbilical hernia.

There is no evidence of record other than the Veteran's own lay assertions indicating that his umbilical hernia may be associated with his military service. Indeed, none of the post-service medical treatment records reflect any such opinion or comment to that effect, and he has not intimated that any such evidence or opinion exists. The Veteran has not submitted any medical evidence suggesting his umbilical hernia may otherwise be related to his military service.

Although the AOJ did not obtain a VA medical opinion addressing whether the Veteran's umbilical hernia was related to his military service, to include heavy lifting during service, the Board finds that such is not required. Specifically, prior to the January 2025 rating decision, there was no competent indication that his umbilical hernia may be related to service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).  Moreover, the Veteran's mere contention that his claimed disability was related to his military service was insufficient to trigger the duty to get an examination or opinion, much less to establish a link. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (an assertion that one condition caused another is insufficient to trigger the duty to provide an examination).

Although lay persons are competent to report symptoms or other matters within their personal knowledge, and to provide opinions on some medical matters (see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011)), here, the specific matter of whether the Veteran's umbilical hernia is the result of his military service involves complex medical matters that fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran is not shown to have the necessary training and expertise to provide a competent opinion as to the cause of his umbilical hernia.

Therefore, the Board finds that service connection for the Veteran's umbilical hernia is not warranted. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, the weight of the probative evidence is against the Veteran's claim. As such, that doctrine is not applicable, and his claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

Leetra J. Harris

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	James R. Springer, 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.