HALLUX VALGUS (BUNION) ACQUIRED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from June 2004 to September 2008, appeals the denial of service connection for hallux valgus. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) reviewed the case, considering evidence from the time of the initial decision, the Veteran's testimony from an April 2024 hearing, and evidence submitted within 90 days of that hearing. The Veteran claimed that her hallux valgus, which causes pain and deformity, began in service due to restrictive and painful boots. She stated she first noticed the deformity after wearing these boots and believed the foot pain resulted from them. The Board acknowledged the Veteran's current diagnosis of hallux valgus and her competence to report symptoms. However, the Board found the Veteran not competent to provide a medical opinion linking the condition to service. Furthermore, the Board found the Veteran's testimony regarding the onset of hallux valgus since service not credible, citing a provider's April 2013 examination that found no foot abnormalities. Consequently, the Board determined there was no competent and credible evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's service and her hallux valgus. As the evidence was not in approximate balance, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine was not applicable. Service connection for hallux valgus was denied.

Rationale

No competent evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation.; Veteran's testimony regarding onset since service found not credible.; April 2013 medical examination found no foot abnormalities.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039680
Decision Date: 04/28/26	Archive Date: 04/28/26

DOCKET NO. 200714-97177
DATE: April 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for hallux valgus is denied. 

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's hallux valgus was not present in service and is not etiologically related to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hallux valgus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 2004 to September 2008. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2020 decision by a Department of Veterans Appeals (VA) agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). 

In July 2020, the Veteran filed a timely VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). She selected the Hearing docket. The Veteran testified before the undersigned in an April 2024 Board hearing. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Therefore, the Board may only review evidence in the record at the time of the March 2020 decision, the Board testimony, and evidence submitted on and within 90 days of the April 2024 Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302.

The Board notes that this matter is restricted to entitlement to service connection for hallux valgus. In another Board decision, under Docket Number 200709-96043, the Board addressed the Veteran's other claim relating to all foot disabilities other than hallux valgus. 

The Veteran's representative noted that the Veteran testified in a Board hearing earlier in that day regarding the Veteran's feet and wished to incorporate that testimony with the evidentiary record. The Board views the testimony from Docket Number 200709-96043 as part of the reviewable record because it was submitted at the same time as the hearing relating to this appeal. 

With respect to the Veteran's claim decided herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty-to-assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326.

The record indicates that the Veteran had not undergone a VA foot examination. VA is obliged to provide an examination or obtain a medical opinion in a claim for service connection when the record contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability, the record indicates that the disability or symptoms of disability may be associated with active service, and the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The threshold for finding a link between current disability and service is low. Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. Here, the Board notes that there is evidence of current symptoms of a hallux valgus, and some evidence connecting these disabilities to service, which would warrant a VA examination under McLendon.

However, remand is permitted only to correct a pre-decisional duty to assist error or for any other error in fulfilling a statutory or regulatory duty, the correction of which raises a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802. The Board finds that no pre-decisional duty to assist error occurred warranting a remand. At the time of the March 2020 decision, there was no competent evidence of current hallux valgus. Nor was there competent evidence of an in-service event relating to these disabilities. The Board notes the Veteran's April 2024 Board testimony and evidence submitted during the 90-day post hearing evidence window would likely meet the low bar of McLendon. However, that evidence was not submitted until after the March 2020 decision. Therefore, the requirements triggering VA's obligation at the time of the March 2020 decision to obtain an examination had not been met and the AOJ did not err with proceeding with the adjudication without an examination and a remand is not warranted.  

Should the Veteran file a supplemental claim for service connection for her disabilities (including providing
 2020 decision, there was no competent evidence of current hallux valgus. Nor was there competent evidence of an in-service event relating to these disabilities. The Board notes the Veteran's April 2024 Board testimony and evidence submitted during the 90-day post hearing evidence window would likely meet the low bar of McLendon. However, that evidence was not submitted until after the March 2020 decision. Therefore, the requirements triggering VA's obligation at the time of the March 2020 decision to obtain an examination had not been met and the AOJ did not err with proceeding with the adjudication without an examination and a remand is not warranted.  

Should the Veteran file a supplemental claim for service connection for her disabilities (including providing new and relevant evidence as required), the AOJ would have an obligation to provide examinations prior to readjudication of the claim.

Service connection will be granted if it is shown that the Veteran suffers from a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, during active military service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Disorders diagnosed after discharge will still be service connected if all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

In order to establish service connection on a direct basis, the record must contain competent evidence of: (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).

In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the weight of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).  When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant.

The Veteran contends that she has hallux valgus and such is related to her boots in-service. 

The Veteran's service treatment records do not indicate any evidence of diagnosis, treatment, symptom, or complaint of hallux valgus. 

The Veteran's post-service treatment record indicates that in April 2013, she had a right foot contusion with intact skin surface. The Veteran reported that she tripped on her dog 4 and a half weeks prior. She had pain on the lateral aspect of the right foot. The provider conducted an examination of both feet. The provider did not find swelling, erythema, induration, abnormal warmth, lateral abnormalities, and/or medial abnormalities. The Tarsal Tinel's sign were negative, there was normal foot motion, no pain was elicited by motion, and normal ambulation was observed. The examiner found there was right foot tenderness of the shaft of the fourth metatarsal and no tenderness of the left foot metatarsal bones. The examiner found the toes showed no abnormalities bilaterally. 

In April 2024, the Veteran testified in two Board hearings. The Veteran stated that she had bunions on her feet, located on the big toes. She explained they bulge out on the side and go down toward the arch of the feet. She noted they caused pain. The Veteran stated she did not have the bunions prior to service. She stated that she had them when she left service. She stated that her chiropractor helped her with the pain the bunions cause her. She stated she believed the foot pain began as a result of her boots in-service. She explained the boots would create restriction and excess pain would occur on the joints of the foot. She stated she first noticed the deformity after wearing her boots in-service. 

The Board finds that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hallux valgus. The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms of hallux valgus. However, she is not competent to provide an opinion linking the diagnosed hallux valgus to active service and specifically to the boots she wore therein, as that requires medical expertise and is outside the realm of common knowledge of a layperson. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (
. She stated she believed the foot pain began as a result of her boots in-service. She explained the boots would create restriction and excess pain would occur on the joints of the foot. She stated she first noticed the deformity after wearing her boots in-service. 

The Board finds that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hallux valgus. The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms of hallux valgus. However, she is not competent to provide an opinion linking the diagnosed hallux valgus to active service and specifically to the boots she wore therein, as that requires medical expertise and is outside the realm of common knowledge of a layperson. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In addition, the Board does not find the Veteran credible in her assertion that she had hallux valgus since service. Notably, in April 2013, a provider examining the Veteran's feet found no foot abnormalities in either the right or left foot or toes. See Gardin v. Shinseki, 613 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Board may find lay evidence not credible when it is contradicted by medical evidence of record). 

As such, the Board finds there is no competent and credible evidence in the record of a nexus between the Veteran's service and her hallux valgus. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable and service connection for hallux valgus is not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

WILLIAM H. DONNELLY

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Robert Batten

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.