FLATFOOT BILATERAL ACQUIRED

DAVID H. ROBERTSON · 2026 · Case ID: A26035860

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps from May 2014 to May 2018, appeals the denial of service connection for several conditions: bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis and 5th MTP bunion, migraines, right shoulder strain, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board found that while the Veteran had current diagnoses for these conditions and provided statements consistent with service duties, the evidence persuasively weighed against a service connection. For the foot conditions, the Board noted private treatment records diagnosed pes planus and plantar fasciitis seven months post-service, and the separation exam showed normal feet, despite the Veteran's claims of in-service injury and a private opinion linking the conditions to service. The VA examiner opined the conditions were less likely than not related to service, finding no in-service evidence of deformity. For migraines, service treatment records were negative for headaches, and the Veteran denied them on periodic health assessments and separation exams, despite a private opinion linking them to service and the Veteran's testimony about tinnitus. The VA examiner found migraines less likely than not related to service. For the right shoulder strain, service treatment records showed no evidence of injury or pain, and the separation exam was normal, contradicting the Veteran's claims and a private opinion. The VA examiner found the shoulder strain less likely than not related to service. For carpal tunnel syndrome, service records showed no complaints or diagnosis of hand/wrist issues, and the separation exam was normal, despite the Veteran's claims of repetitive motion and a private opinion finding it more likely than not service-related. The VA examiner found carpal tunnel less likely than not related to service. In all cases, the Board found the Veteran competent to report symptoms but not to provide medical diagnoses or nexus opinions, giving more weight to the VA examiner's opinions and lack of in-service evidence. Service connection for all conditions was denied.

Rationale

Persuasively weighs against in-service origin; VA examiner opined less likely than not related to service; Service treatment records negative for condition

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210525-161945

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26035860
Decision Date: 04/16/26 Archive Date: 04/16/26

DOCKET NO. 210525-161945
DATE: April 16, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis, 5th MTP bunion is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for migraines is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder strain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity, carpal tunnel syndrome is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity, carpal tunnel syndrome is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's bilateral pes planus, plantar fasciitis, and 5th MTP bunion began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's migraines began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease, to include service-connected tinnitus.

3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's right shoulder began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's carpal tunnel syndrome began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis, 5th MTP bunion have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for migraines have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

3. The criteria for service connection for right shoulder strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for right upper extremity, carpal tunnel syndrome have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for right upper extremity, carpal tunnel syndrome have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps from May 2014 to May 2018.

In the May 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held in November 2024. The Veteran was mailed a letter in February 2025 informing him that a transcript of the hearing is not available due to an audio problem during the hearing. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 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

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by
38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

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).

1. Bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis, 5th MTP bunion.

The Veteran contends that he developed a foot condition as a result of marching and other duties during service.

Favorable findings from the May 2021 Rating Decision confirm a current diagnosis of bilateral plantar fasciitis and pes planus. Diagnoses were noted in January 2019 private treatment records and in the April 2021 VA examination. As such, the first element of service connection has been met.

The Board notes that the Veteran is already service connected for left foot strain, status post-left great toe fracture, status post-left third toe fracture.

Although the Veteran has a current diagnosis of pes planus and plantar fasciitis, and his statement regarding his duties is consistent with circumstances of his service, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that his diagnoses began during service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

Private treatment records show the Veteran was diagnosed with pes planus and plantar fasciitis January 2019, seven months after separation from service. Review of his service treatment records shows chronic left foot pain related to the sesamoid bone. X-rays completed in June and August 2017 showed fracture of the base of the proximal phalanx third toe. The March 2018 separation examination shows normal feet, to include the arch. On the accompanying Report of Medical Assessment, the Veteran indicated that he sought medical care for all injuries he suffered from during active-duty service. The Report of Medical History noted "foot trouble" but the explanation referred to "left sesamoid bone (pain for 9 months)."

The January 2021 private opinion noted that the Veteran engaged in vigorous physical training involving marching, running, jogging, and hiking on uneven and hard surfaces in ill-fitted combat boots for long periods. He later noticed flattening of his arch with severe pain. After he was discharged, his symptoms worsened and x-rays showed pes planus with bunions. Ultimately, the examiner found that the Veteran's diagnoses were due to service because of the progressive deformity of the feet caused by loss of support from the arch due to increased load and strain.

During the November 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that the injuries to his feet were caused by the requirement to carry a heavy backpack, while marching in boots.

Statements from former servicemembers , friends, coworkers, and girlfriend were submitted in support of the Veteran's claim. His coworker wrote that he noticed the Veteran had limitations at work and frequently needed to sit down to rest his feet. His girlfriend noticed his severe pes planus and attempts to treat the condition. His former platoon member indicated that he witnessed the Veteran fall and injure his feet. He hid his condition from the rest of their unit to avoid looking weak. Another platoon member indicated that the Veteran fractured his toes and the condition did not heal properly.

Although the Veteran is competent to report having experienced foot pain since service, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of pes planus or plantar fasciitis. The issue is medically complex. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Further, the April 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's pes
Veteran fall and injure his feet. He hid his condition from the rest of their unit to avoid looking weak. Another platoon member indicated that the Veteran fractured his toes and the condition did not heal properly.

Further, the April 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's pes planus, plantar fasciitis, and 5th MTP bunion are not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. There was evidence of left foot pain due to sesamoid bone as confirmed via x-ray, but no evidence of other deformity, to include pes planus, plantar fasciitis, or bunion. Specific to the right foot, there was no evidence of right foot symptoms during service, to include on the separation exam. The examiner's opinions are probative, because they were based on an accurate medical history and provide explanations that contain clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

The January independent medical examination is considered less probative because the opinion appeared to be solely based on the Veteran's statements regarding his in-service foot pain. The examiner did not address the lack of in-service evidence or reasons for the Veteran not reporting or seeking care for his claimed conditions. Again, review of his service treatment records is negative for pes planus, plantar fasciitis or bunions, but the Veteran sought care for various other conditions, to include pain in his left foot related to sesamoid bone fracture, painful urination, warts on his hands, as well as upper respiratory infections. Moreover, the Veteran documented conditions at separation including lower back pain, left sesamoid bone, lymph node pain, and required aid to fall asleep. There was no mention of fallen arches or bilateral foot pain.

The Veteran believes the claimed pes planus, plantar fasciitis, and 5th MTP bunion are related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In this case, he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA examiner's opinions and other medical evidence showing his conditions did not begin during service.

Service connection for pes planus, plantar fasciitis, and 5th MTP bunion must be denied. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, there is no competent medical evidence in support of the claims. As there is no approximate balance of the evidence for the claim, the doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

2. Migraines.

The Veteran contends that he developed migraine headaches due to his service, to include as secondary to already service-connected tinnitus.

Favorable findings from the May 2021 Rating Decision confirm a current diagnosis of migraine headaches. A diagnosis was noted in January 2019 private treatment records and in the April 2021 VA examination. As such, the first element of service connection has been met.

The Veteran has been service connected for tinnitus since May 2018.

The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of migraine headaches, and his statement regarding his duties is consistent with circumstances of his service, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that his diagnoses began during service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

The Veteran has been service connected for tinnitus since May 2018.

Private treatment records show the Veteran was diagnosed with migraine headaches in January 2019, seven months after separation from service. Review of his service treatment records does not show any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for headaches. On periodic health assessments conducted in January 2017 and January 2018, the Veteran indicated that he did not experience headaches or migraines. The March 2018 separation examination shows a normal head. On the accompanying Report of Medical Assessment, the Veteran indicated that he sought medical care for all injuries/conditions he suffered from during active-duty service. On the Report of Medical History, the Veteran denied frequent or severe headaches or any head injury. The March 2017 Report of Medical History also shows the Veteran denied headaches.

The January 2021 private opinion noted the Veteran experienced severe headaches since 2017 from conducting training explosives. After discharge, the headaches worsened in severity and frequency. He had to take sick leave to go home from work when his migraine headache pain was severe. Ultimately, the examiner found that the Veteran's headaches had their onset in service.

During the November 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his headaches were the result of tinnitus that stemmed from his exposure to blasts. The headaches have gotten progressively worse, despite taking oral medications for the pain.

Statements from former servicemembers , friends, coworkers, and girlfriend were submitted in support of the Veteran's claim. His coworker wrote that he noticed the Veteran had severe head pain monthly that caused light sensitivity and he had to sit in a quiet office. His girlfriend noticed his severe headaches/migraines and how they impacted his daily life, including missing work. His former platoon member indicated that he witnessed the Veteran experience severe headaches/migraines. He hid his condition from the rest of their unit to avoid looking weak.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that service connection for migraine headaches is not warranted.

Although the Veteran is competent to report having experienced headache pain since service, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of migraine headaches. The issue is medically complex. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Further, the April 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's migraine headaches are less as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. There was no evidence of migraine headaches during service. His separation exam was negative for any head pain. The examiner's opinion is probative because it was based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

The January independent medical examination is considered less probative because the opinion appeared to be solely based on the Veteran's statements regarding his in-service headache pain. The examiner did not address the lack of in-service evidence or reasons for the Veteran not reporting or seeking care for his claimed conditions. Again, review of his service treatment records is negative for migraines or headaches, but the Veteran sought care for various other conditions, to include pain in his left ankle/foot, painful urination, warts on his hands, as well as upper respiratory infections. Moreover, the Veteran documented conditions at separation including lower back pain, left sesamoid bone, lymph node pain, and required aid to fall asleep. There was no mention of headache pain.

The Veteran believes the claimed migraine headaches are related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In this case, he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the
pain.

Service connection for migraine headaches must be denied. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, there is no competent medical evidence in support of the claims. As there is no approximate balance of the evidence for the claim, the doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

3. Right shoulder strain.

The Veteran contends that he suffered a right shoulder strain as a result of an injury during service.

Favorable findings from the May 2021 Rating Decision confirm a current diagnosis of right shoulder strain. A diagnosis was noted in January 2019 private treatment records and in the April 2021 VA examination. As such, the first element of service connection has been met.

The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of right shoulder strain, and his statement regarding his duties is consistent with circumstances of his service, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that his diagnoses began during service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

Private treatment records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with migraine headaches until January 2019, seven months after separation from service. Review of his service treatment records does not show any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for a shoulder injury. The Veteran deployed to Australia in 2016 and on the January 2017 Periodic Health Assessment (PHA), he indicated that his health was "very good" and the same as before he deployed. On his January 2018 PHA, the Veteran denied joint pain. The March 2018 separation examination shows normal upper extremities. On the accompanying Report of Medical Assessment, the Veteran indicated that he sought medical care for all injuries/conditions he suffered from during active-duty service. On the Report of Medical History, the Veteran denied painful shoulder. The March 2017 Report of Medical History also shows the Veteran denied having a painful shoulder.

The January 2021 private opinion indicated the Veteran had a diagnosis of right shoulder arthritis and limited motion as a result of severe contusion to the shoulder joint and inflammation of the cartilage which led to degeneration. The Veteran reported being hit in his right shoulder by a rock because he was in the post-blast perimeter from a rocket. The impact knocked him to the ground. Over the next few weeks, he experienced severe pain and stiffness in the right shoulder. The symptoms worsened and continued after discharge.

During the November 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his right shoulder strain was the result of a training accident in which a rock was propelled into his shoulder by a rocket blast. He continued to experience sharp pain.

Statements from former servicemembers , friends, coworkers, and girlfriend were submitted in support of the Veteran's claim. His coworker and girlfriend wrote that he noticed the Veteran had severe shoulder pain that impacted his daily life. His girlfriend noticed his severe headaches/migraines and how they impacted his daily life, including missing work. His former platoon member indicated that he witnessed the Veteran thrown to the ground by a rocket blast and tear his right shoulder. As a team leader, the Veteran had to uphold the standard for their unit, which resulted in him receiving little to no medical care. Another servicemember also noted the Veteran experienced severe shoulder pain. He hid his condition from the rest of their unit to avoid looking weak.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that service connection for the right shoulder condition is not warranted.

Although the Veteran is competent to report having experienced shoulder pain since service, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of a shoulder strain. The issue is medically complex. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377
tear his right shoulder. As a team leader, the Veteran had to uphold the standard for their unit, which resulted in him receiving little to no medical care. Another servicemember also noted the Veteran experienced severe shoulder pain. He hid his condition from the rest of their unit to avoid looking weak.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that service connection for the right shoulder condition is not warranted.

Further, the April 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's shoulder strain is less as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. There was no evidence of a shoulder injury or pain during service. His separation exam was also negative for a shoulder condition. The examiner referred to the private opinion noting that the diagnosis of right shoulder arthritis could not be substantiated. The examiner's opinion is probative because it was based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

The January independent medical examination is considered less probative because the opinion appeared to be solely based on the Veteran's statements regarding his in-service shoulder pain. The examiner did not address the lack of in-service evidence or reasons for the Veteran not reporting or seeking care for his claimed conditions. Again, review of his service treatment records is negative for a shoulder injury or symptoms, but the Veteran sought care for various other conditions, to include pain in his left ankle/foot, painful urination, warts on his hands, as well as upper respiratory infections. Moreover, the Veteran documented conditions at separation including lower back pain, left sesamoid bone, lymph node pain, and required aid to fall asleep. There was no mention of shoulder pain.

The Veteran believes the claimed current right shoulder strain is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In this case, he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA examiner's opinions and other medical evidence showing his condition did not begin during service.

Service connection for a right shoulder condition must be denied. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, there is no competent medical evidence in support of the claim. As there is no approximate balance of the evidence for the claim, the doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

4. Right upper extremity, carpal tunnel syndrome.

5. Left upper extremity, carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Veteran contends that he suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome as a result of his duties during service. During the November 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he developed pain in his hands from carrying the weight of engineering equipment and explosives. He would self-treat the symptoms with over-the-counter medications.

Favorable findings from the May 2021 Rating Decision confirm a current diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. A diagnosis was noted in January 2019 private treatment records and in the April 2021 VA examination. As such, the first element of service connection has been met.

The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome and his statement regarding his duties is consistent with circumstances of his service, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that his diagnoses began during service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

The January 2021 private opinion indicated the Veteran had a diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The Veteran reported carrying heavy equipment as a combat engineer and conducted repetitive motion while using hand tools. He began experiencing pain in his wrists with tingling
diagnosis was noted in January 2019 private treatment records and in the April 2021 VA examination. As such, the first element of service connection has been met.

The January 2021 private opinion indicated the Veteran had a diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The Veteran reported carrying heavy equipment as a combat engineer and conducted repetitive motion while using hand tools. He began experiencing pain in his wrists with tingling and numbness in the thumb, index, and middle fingers. His symptoms have resulted in decreased grip strength, which has worsened over time. The examiner found that the Veteran's carpal tunnel was more likely than not a result of the symptoms he experienced during service.

The April 2021 VA examination shows the Veteran was not diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome until April 2021, two years after separation from service. Review of his service treatment records does not show any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for hand or wrist pain. The Veteran deployed to Australia in 2016 and on the January 2017 Periodic Health Assessment (PHA), he indicated that his health was "very good" and the same as before he deployed. On his January 2018 PHA, the Veteran denied joint pain. The March 2018 separation examination shows normal upper extremities. On the accompanying Report of Medical Assessment, the Veteran indicated that he sought medical care for all injuries/conditions he suffered from during active-duty service. On both the March 2017 and 2018 Reports of Medical History, the Veteran denied painful joints and numbness or tingling.

A statement from the Veteran's girlfriend was submitted in support of his claim. She noticed the Veteran had difficulty carrying items over 10 pounds because it would cause hand and wrist pain.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that there is no medical nexus the Veteran's claimed carpal tunnel syndrome and his service.

Although the Veteran is competent to report having experienced hand and wrist pain, numbness and tingling since service, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of a shoulder strain. The issue is medically complex. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Further, the April 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's carpal tunnel is less likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. There was no evidence of hand or wrist pain, numbness, or tingling during service. His separation exam was also negative for carpal tunnel syndrome. The examiner referred to the private opinion noting that they were unable to find the evidence used to substantiate the opinion. The VA examiner's opinion is probative because it was based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

The January independent medical examination is considered less probative because the opinion appeared to be solely based on the Veteran's statements regarding his in-service hand pain and other symptoms. The examiner did not address the lack of in-service evidence or reasons for the Veteran not reporting or seeking care for his claimed conditions. Again, review of his service treatment records is negative for carpal tunnel or hand pain, but the Veteran sought care for various other conditions, to include pain in his left ankle/foot, painful urination, warts on his hands, as well as upper respiratory infections. Moreover, the Veteran documented conditions at separation including lower back pain, left sesamoid bone, lymph node pain, and required aid to fall asleep. There was no mention of hand pain, numbness, or tingling.

The Veteran believes the claimed current carpal tunnel syndrome is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In this case, he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011).
hand pain, numbness, or tingling.

Service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome must be denied. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, there is no competent medical evidence in support of the claim. As there is no approximate balance of the evidence for the claim, the doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

David Robertson

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Price Umaru, Antonette

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