DERMATOPHYTOSIS

JOHN Z. JONES · 2026 · Case ID: A26035050

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran served on active duty from September 2006 to September 2010. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for tinea pedis, headaches, allergic rhinitis, onychomycosis, and a hernia. The Veteran also sought a higher rating for allergic rhinitis, onychomycosis, and a hernia. The Board denied service connection for tinea pedis, headaches, and a hernia due to the Veteran's failure to attend scheduled VA examinations without good cause. For tinea pedis and headaches, the Board found that a new examination was necessary to establish entitlement, but the Veteran provided no explanation for missing the appointments. For the hernia claim, a new examination was also necessary to establish a higher rating, and the Veteran again failed to report without good cause. The Board denied the claim for a compensable rating for onychomycosis, noting that the evidence of record did not support the criteria for a higher rating, and the Veteran again failed to attend a scheduled examination without good cause. The Board also denied a higher rating for allergic rhinitis, finding that the evidence did not support the criteria for a compensable rating and that the Veteran failed to attend a scheduled examination without good cause. The Board's decisions were based on the Veteran's failure to report for necessary examinations and the lack of evidence to support the claims.

Rationale

Failure to attend scheduled VA examination without good cause; New examination necessary to establish current diagnosis; No evidence of record for current tinea pedis

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Diagnostic Code

7813

Docket No.

250408-533763

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26035050
Decision Date: 04/15/26 Archive Date: 04/15/26

DOCKET NO. 250408-533763
DATE: April 15, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for tinea pedis is denied.

Service connection for headaches is denied.

A compensable rating for allergic rhinitis is denied.

A compensable rating for onychomycosis is denied.

A compensable rating for umbilical hernia is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has a diagnosis of tinea pedis.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has a diagnosis of headaches.

3. The Veteran failed to report for a VA examination for his claim for service connection for tinea pedis.

4. The Veteran failed to report for a VA examination for his claim for a higher rating for allergic rhinitis and good cause has not been given to explain his failure to report.

5. The Veteran failed to report for a VA examination for his claim for a higher rating for onychomycosis and good cause has not been given to explain his failure to report.

6. The Veteran failed to report for a VA examination for his claim for a higher rating for a hernia and good cause has not been given to explain his failure to report.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for tinea pedis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for headaches are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for a compensable rating for non-allergic rhinitis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.31, 4.97, DC 6522.

4. The criteria for a compensable disability rating for onychomycosis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7813.

5. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for a hernia are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.114, DC 7338.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from September 2006 to September 2010.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2025 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO).

In an April 8, 2025, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran selected the direct review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 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 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.

Service Connection

Generally, service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability
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.

Service Connection

Generally, service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the in-service disease or injury, the so-called "nexus" requirement. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Tinea Pedis

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for tinea pedis, to include as secondary to service-connected onychomycosis.

The rating decision on appeal made a favorable finding that onychomycosis is service connected. The Board is bound by favorable findings of the AOJ. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Thus, the remaining issue is whether the Veteran had a current diagnosis of tinea pedis that was caused or aggravated by his military service or onychomycosis.

The Veteran submitted a claim for service connection for tinea pedis in November 2024. He stated that his onychomycosis damaged his toenails and weakened his skin barrier and made him more susceptible to athlete's foot, which had become a chronic issue. He was scheduled for a December 2024 VA examination. However, he did not attend the scheduled appointment.

By regulation, "[w]hen entitlement... to a benefit cannot be established or confirmed without a current VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report... action shall be taken in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section as appropriate." 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). Therefore, the Board must consider (1) whether the examination is necessary to establish the entitlement to the benefit sought, and (2) whether the Veteran had good cause to miss the scheduled examination. Turk v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 565, 569 (2008).

A new examination would be necessary to establish service connection for tinea pedis. January 2024 VA treatment records note "no skin lesions or rash," and a February 2024 diabetic foot check noted that visual inspection of the Veteran's feet was "normal." Previous skin examinations in May 2024 and September 2023 did not report tinea pedis. Well before his claim, the November 2016 VA treatment records note treatment of miconazole and hydrocortisone to treat athlete's foot. However, there is no indication in the record for the intervening years that the Veteran's tinea pedis continued.

Accordingly, as a new examination would be necessary to establish service connection, the Board now turns to the question of whether the Veteran had good cause to miss the examination. The Veteran has not provided any explanation for his failure to report. As the Veteran has failed to provide any explanation for his failure to report, the Board cannot find that there was good cause for the Veteran's failure to report.

In these circumstances, the regulation directs the Board to act "in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section as appropriate." 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). What action needs to be taken depends on whether the Veteran's claim is an original compensation claim or "any other original claim, a supplemental claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed, or a claim for increase." 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). If the former, the claim is to be rated on the evidence of record. But if the latter, the claim is to be summarily denied. Id. The Veteran's claim is an original compensation claim; accordingly, the claim must be rated on the evidence of record. As discussed above, there is no evidence of record that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of tinea pedis or any other skin disability of his feet aside from his service-connected onychomycosis. As such, the Board must deny the Veteran's claim for service connection of tinea pedis as a matter of law. Id.

Headaches

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a
.R. § 3.655(b). If the former, the claim is to be rated on the evidence of record. But if the latter, the claim is to be summarily denied. Id. The Veteran's claim is an original compensation claim; accordingly, the claim must be rated on the evidence of record. As discussed above, there is no evidence of record that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of tinea pedis or any other skin disability of his feet aside from his service-connected onychomycosis. As such, the Board must deny the Veteran's claim for service connection of tinea pedis as a matter of law. Id.

Headaches

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a headache disability, to include as secondary to his service-connected post traumatic cauliflower right ear. He contends that the swelling and deformity caused pressure and tension around his ear and head and triggered severe headaches.

The Veteran was scheduled for a December 2024 VA examination for headaches. However, he did not attend the scheduled appointment.

A new examination would be necessary to establish service connection for headaches. VA treatment records do not document treatment or reports of headaches or migraines. Additionally, an April 2024 Gulf War General Medical Evaluation did not note headaches or migraines.

Accordingly, as a new examination would be necessary to establish a current diagnosis of headaches, the Board now turns to the question of whether the Veteran had good cause to miss the examination. The Veteran has not provided any explanation for his failure to report. As the Veteran has failed to provide any explanation for his failure to report, the Board cannot find that there was good cause for the Veteran's failure to report.

As discussed above, there is no evidence of record that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of headaches or migraines. Although the Veteran reported severe migraines, there is no indication that he is competent to make such a diagnosis. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As no current diagnosis of headaches or migraines can be established on the evidence of record, the Board must deny the Veteran's claim for service connection as a matter of law. Id.

Increased Disability Ratings

Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In considering the severity of a disability, it is essential to trace the veteran's medical history. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2
conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

Rhinitis

The Veteran contends that his rhinitis warrants a compensable rating; specifically, he was continually having congestion and sneezing, that consideration of his symptoms and obstruction was incomplete, and that his rhinitis aggravated his service-connected asthma.

In his Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran identified a March 2025 rating decision, which was issued in response to a November 2024 VA 21-526EZ, application for disability compensation and related compensation benefits, in which he requested a higher rating for his service-connected rhinitis. In a claim for increased compensation, the effective date may date back as much as one year before the date of the application for increase if it is factually "ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred" within that timeframe. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3) (formerly (b)(2)); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2); see also Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 982-83 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reaffirming that the plain language of [section] 5110(b)(2) only permits an earlier effective date for increased disability compensation if that disability increased during the one-year period before the filing of the claim). As the Veteran was granted service connection effective December 2023, the one-year lookback period encompasses the entirety of the time period in which the Veteran has been granted service connection.

The Veteran's allergic rhinitis has been rated as noncompensable under DC 6522 from December 2023. DC 6522 for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis directs a 10 percent rating for rhinitis without polyps, but with greater than 50-percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side, and a 30 percent rating for rhinitis with polyps.

The Veteran was afforded an April 2024 VA examination, in which the Veteran reported that when the condition began, the Veteran's symptoms were sneezing, stuffy nose, and congestion. He denied current symptoms at the time of examination. His treatment included an oral medication and nasal spray, and he stated that his condition required taking days off work and that he was unable to work to his full potential. He had difficulty concentrating when having a constellation of symptoms. The examiner noted that there was not a greater than 50 percent obstruction on both sides or a complete obstruction on either the right or left side of the nasal passages. There was permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates, but no nasal polyps.

The Veteran subsequently submitted a claim for a higher rating and was scheduled for an additional examination; however, he did not attend the scheduled appointment.

A new examination would be necessary to establish a higher rating; accordingly, the Board now turns to the question of whether the Veteran had good cause to miss the examination. The Veteran has not provided any explanation for his failure to report. As the Veteran has failed to provide any explanation for his failure to report, the Board cannot find that there was good cause for the failure.

In these circumstances, the regulation directs the Board to act "in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section as appropriate." 38 C.F.R. § 3.655
had good cause to miss the scheduled examination. Turk v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 565, 569 (2008).

In these circumstances, the regulation directs the Board to act "in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section as appropriate." 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). What action needs to be taken depends on whether the Veteran's claim is an original compensation claim or "any other original claim, a supplemental claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed, or a claim for increase." 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). If the former, the claim is to be rated on the evidence of record. But if the latter, the claim is to be summarily denied. Id. The Veteran's claim is a claim for increase as it is an appeal of a denial for an increased rating. As such, the Board must deny the Veteran's claim as a matter of law. Id. Further, the Board notes that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran met the criteria for a compensable rating during the entirety of the period on appeal, as there is no evidence to support finding a greater than 50-percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side or polyps. Accordingly, the Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for service-connected rhinitis is denied.

Onychomycosis

The Veteran contends that his onychomycosis warrants a compensable rating. Specifically, he contends that his face and back have been discolored along with a permanent skin tag.

The Veteran's onychomycosis is rated under DC 7813 for dermatophytosis, which includes onychomycosis and directs to evaluate under the General Rating Formula for the Skin (general formula).

Effective August 13, 2018, VA regulations explicitly state that systemic therapy is treatment that is administered through any route other than the skin, and topical therapy is treatment that is administered through the skin. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118(a).

From August 13, 2018, under the general formula, a noncompensable rating is assigned for no more than topical therapy required over the past 12-month period and at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of the entire body affected; or characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of exposed areas affected.

A 10 percent rating is assigned for at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; or at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas affected; or intermittent systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over the past 12- month period.

A 30 percent rating is assigned at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving more than 20 to 40 percent of the entire body or 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of 6 weeks or more, but not constantly, over the past 12-month period.

A 60 percent rating is assigned for at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or constant or near-constant systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, psoralen with long-wave ultraviolet-A light (PUVA), or other immunosuppressive drugs required over the past 12-month period. Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800) or scars (DC's 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or 7805), depending on the predominant disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, General Rating for the Skin for DCs 7806, 7809, 781
; or constant or near-constant systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, psoralen with long-wave ultraviolet-A light (PUVA), or other immunosuppressive drugs required over the past 12-month period. Or rate as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (DC 7800) or scars (DC's 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or 7805), depending on the predominant disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, General Rating for the Skin for DCs 7806, 7809, 7813-7816, 7820-7822, and 7824.

Turning to the evidence of record, the Veteran submitted a claim for a higher rating for onychomycosis in July 2023. A September 2023 VA examination confirmed a diagnosis of onychomycosis. The examiner noted that the Veteran had not been treated with medication in the past 12 months for any skin condition. The physical examination noted that the affected area of his total body area was less than 5 percent, with none of his exposed body area affected. The examiner described his condition as thickened, discolored toenails on the left second and third toes and right first, second, and third toes.

The Veteran was afforded an additional April 2024 VA examination, which noted seborrheic keratosis of the right calf and scalp. The Veteran was again noted to have not been treated with medication in the past 12 months for any skin condition, although he had received cryotherapy for his seborrheic dermatitis. The examination did not note or address his onychomycosis. Notably, the Veteran was denied service connection for seborrheic keratosis in a July 2024 rating decision, which became final.

The Veteran submitted an additional claim for higher compensation in November 2024. He was scheduled for a December 2024 VA examination; however, he did not attend the scheduled appointment.

A new examination would be necessary to establish a higher rating, as the evidence of record does not indicate that the Veteran's onychomycosis manifested in characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; or at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas affected; or intermittent systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over the past 12- month period. Further, although the Veteran states that his face and back have been discolored with a permanent skin tag, his onychomycosis was most recently noted to affect his toenails. There is no indication in the record that his onychomycosis extends to his face and back. The Board notes that the seborrheic dermatitis of his scalp and leg was denied service connection and have not been appealed.

Accordingly, the Board now turns to the question of whether the Veteran had good cause to miss the examination. The Veteran has not provided any explanation for his failure to report. As the Veteran has failed to provide any explanation for his failure to report, the Board cannot find that there was good cause for the Veteran's failure to report.

In these circumstances, the regulation directs the Board to act "in accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section as appropriate." 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). What action needs to be taken depends on whether the Veteran's claim is an original compensation claim or "any other original claim, a supplemental claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed, or a claim for increase." 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). If the former, the claim is to be rated on the evidence of record. But if the latter, the claim is to be summarily denied. Id. The Veteran's claim is a claim for increase as it is an appeal of a denial for an increased rating. As such, the Board must deny the Veteran's claim as a matter of law. Id. Accordingly, the Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for service-connected onychomycosis is denied.

Hernia

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a compensable rating for his service-connected hernia.

The Veteran's hernia has been rated as noncompensable under DC 7338.

During the pendency of the Veteran's claim and appeal, the criteria for rating the digestive system were changed by an amendment to the rating schedule that became effective on May 19, 2024. 85 Fed. Reg. 89, 19735 (March 20, 2024). The amended rating criteria, if favorable to the claim, can be applied only for periods from the effective date of the regulatory change; however, the old regulations will be considered for the periods both before and after the change was made. See VAOPGCPREC 3-2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 33,422 (2000); Kuzma v. Principi, 341 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

The Veteran's inguinal hernia disability was rated as noncompensable under DC 7338. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114. Under the rating criteria in effect prior to May 19, 2024, a noncompensable rating was assigned for a small inguinal hernia, reducible, or without true hernia protrusion. An inguinal hernia that is not operated on, but is remediable, was also assigned a noncompensable rating. A postoperative recurrent inguinal hernia, readily reducible, well supported by truss or belt, was rated as 10 percent disabling. A small inguinal hernia, postoperative recurrent, or unoperated irremediable, not well supported by truss, or not readily reducible, was rated as 30 percent disabling. A large inguinal hernia, postoperative recurrent, not well supported under ordinary conditions and not readily reducible, when considered inoperable, was rated 60 percent disabling. A Note to DC 7338 provided that 10 percent was to be added for bilateral involvement, provided the second hernia was compensable.

Under the revised, May 19, 2024, rating criteria, DC 7338 provides for a noncompensable rating where there is an asymptomatic hernia; present and repairable, or repaired. A 10 percent rating is warranted where there is an irreparable hernia (new or recurrent) present for 12 months or more; with hernia size smaller than 3 centimeters. A 20 percent rating is warranted where there is an irreparable hernia (new or recurrent) present for 12 months or more; with both of the following present for 12 months or more: 1. Size equal to 3 cm or greater but less than 15 cm in one dimension; and 2. Pain when performing one of the following activities: (1) bending over, (2) activities of daily living (ADLs), (3) walking, and (4) climbing stairs. A 30 percent rating is warranted when there is an irreparable hernia (new or recurrent) present for 12 months or more; with both of the following present for 12 months or more: 1. Size equal to 3 cm or greater but less than 15 cm in one dimension; and 2. Pain when performing at least two of the following activities: (1) bending over, (2) activities of daily living (ADLs), (3) walking, and (4) climbing stairs. A 60 percent rating is warranted when there is an irreparable hernia (new or recurrent) present for 12 months or more; with both of the following present
walking, and (4) climbing stairs. A 30 percent rating is warranted when there is an irreparable hernia (new or recurrent) present for 12 months or more; with both of the following present for 12 months or more: 1. Size equal to 3 cm or greater but less than 15 cm in one dimension; and 2. Pain when performing at least two of the following activities: (1) bending over, (2) activities of daily living (ADLs), (3) walking, and (4) climbing stairs. A 60 percent rating is warranted when there is an irreparable hernia (new or recurrent) present for 12 months or more; with both of the following present for 12 months or more: 1. Size equal to 15 cm or greater in one dimension; and 2. Pain when performing two of the following activities: (1) bending over, (2) activities of daily living (ADLs), (3) walking, and (4) climbing stairs. Note (2) provides that any one of the following activities of daily living are sufficient for evaluation: bathing, dressing, hygiene, and/or transfers.

Following a claim for a higher rating, the Veteran was afforded a September 2023 VA examination for hernias. The examiner noted a ventral hernia, and the Veteran reported symptoms of pain at the site of hernia with lifting. The examiner assessed that the Veteran had no previous surgery, but the hernia appeared to be small, operable, and remediable. There was no indication for a supporting belt or truss.

The Veteran subsequently submitted an additional claim for a higher rating for his hernia. He was scheduled for a December 2024 VA examination; however, he did not attend the scheduled appointment.

A new examination would be necessary to establish a higher rating, as the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's hernia was postoperative under the pre-May 19, 2024, criteria. Further, the evidence of record does not show that that the hernia was irreparable under the new criteria.

JOHN Z. JONES

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board L. Resor, 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