FOOT IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from December 1968 to December 1971, appeals the denial of service connection for a bilateral foot disability. The Veteran claims the condition is due to a crush injury sustained during service when a Jeep ran over both of his feet while he was assisting with a fallen pole. The Board found that the Veteran has a current bilateral foot disability, including bunions, a history of a right foot fracture with repair, and a chronic left foot condition, as documented in VA treatment records. The Veteran's testimony and lay statements consistently describe the in-service injury and the subsequent onset and worsening of foot problems since service, with no intervening injury. The Board found the January 2026 private medical opinion from Dr. C.H., a podiatric physician, to be highly probative. Dr. C.H. opined that the Veteran's current bilateral foot conditions, including posttraumatic arthritis, bone spurring, and degenerative joint disease, were a direct result of the in-service crush injury. The Board found this opinion well-reasoned and not contradicted by any other opinion of record. Therefore, service connection for the bilateral foot disability was granted.

Rationale

Prognosis of bilateral foot disability supported by VA treatment records.; In-service injury documented by Veteran's testimony and lay statements.; Private medical opinion from Dr. C.H. provided adequate rationale linking current disability to in-service injury.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040845
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 231212-399244
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a bilateral foot disability is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The probative evidence of record establishes that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral foot disability is related to his active military service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability have 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 from December 1968 to December 1971.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2023 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Notably, the May 2023 rating decision was a Higher-Level Review (HLR) decision, issued in response to a February 2023 VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: HLR, which requested review of a November 2022 decision by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), which denied service connection for a bilateral foot disability.

In the December 12, 2023, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held before the undersigned on January 14, 2026.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the November 2022 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his 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, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review 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 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. 

Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability

The Veteran contends that entitlement to service connection is warranted for his bilateral foot condition.

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).

Certain chronic diseases, such as arthritis, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

When the evidence is in approximate balance in the Veteran's favor or nearly equal regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed
 to the chronic disease.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

When the evidence is in approximate balance in the Veteran's favor or nearly equal regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

In this case, medical treatment records indicate that the Veteran has a diagnosis of a bilateral foot disability. Specifically, VA medical treatment records show bilateral bunions, a history of a right foot fracture with repair, and a chronic left foot condition.  A current disability has therefore been demonstrated.  Additionally, the Veteran has stated that he injured his feet during service. Specifically, the Veteran has stated that his feet were run over by a Jeep that he was trying to move after it was crushed by a fallen pole. Accordingly, an in-service injury has been shown.

As the record contains evidence of a diagnosed disability, and evidence of an in-service injury or disease, what remains to be established is whether there is a nexus between the diagnosed bilateral foot disability and his in-service disease or injury.

VA treatment records from June 2017 note treatment for pain and frequent swelling in his left foot. The Veteran's physician noted that this "problem has been present since he had a heavy object fall on his [left] forefoot while in the service".

The Veteran had a hearing before the Board in January 2026. The Veteran testified that an incident happened in service when a crane lifted a pole and the cable snapped, which crushed a Jeep that was sitting on the dock.  The Veteran testified that he was a heavy equipment operator and assisted in getting the pole off the Jeep and clearing the dock. The Veteran explained that the plan had been to lift the pole off the Jeep and pull the Jeep out from under the pole.  However, the backhoe started moving the Jeep and the cable, and "the rear tire of the Jeep ran over both of [his] feet".  The Veteran further testified that he went to a field medic who massaged his feet a little bit and gave him some pain medication. The Veteran believed that there was no documentation of the incident in his service records because he only saw a field medic. Additionally, the Veteran testified that he had had foot issues since service but did not have any additional injuries to his feet after separation from service.

On the day of the Board hearing, the Veteran submitted a January 2026 private medical opinion from his treating physician Dr. C.H., a doctor of podiatric medicine. Dr. C.H. opined that the Veteran's current bilateral foot conditions including posttraumatic arthritis, bone spurring, degenerative joint destruction, erosion of cartilaginous surfaces, and inflammation and pain were a direct result of the traumatic injury he sustained to both feet during active military service. Dr. C.H. stated that the Veteran sustained bilateral crush injuries to the feet which had exacerbated arthritic processes to the bilateral first metatarsal phalangeal joint. Dr. C.H. noted that there had also been significant cartilage degeneration, bone spur formation, abnormal bone remodeling secondary to the crush injury and joint damage. Dr. C.H. indicated that the Veteran's symptoms and radiographic findings were consistent with posttraumatic degenerative joint disease secondary to the initial traumatic event, i.e. bilateral crush injury. Dr. C.H. noted that the continuity of symptoms further supported a direct causal relationship between the Veteran's in-service injury and his current bilateral foot disabilities. Dr. C.H. noted the documented mechanism of injury, the absence of any significant preservice foot pathology, the continuity and worsening of symptoms since the injury, and a well-established medical relationship between the crush trauma and posttraumatic arthritic degenerative changes to the joint, and concluded that it was highly likely that the Veteran's bilateral foot conditions were due to the injury he sustained in active service. 

The Board finds that service connection is warranted for the Veteran's bilateral foot disability.  Specifically, the Board finds that the probative medical evidence of record is in favor of finding that the Veteran's bilateral foot condition was incurred in or caused by his active service.  The Board finds the August 2020 private medical opinion from Dr. C.H. to carry significant probative weight because Dr. C.H. provided an adequate rationale based on the pertinent evidence of record.  Additionally, there is no opinion of record that directly contradicts the January 202
 posttraumatic arthritic degenerative changes to the joint, and concluded that it was highly likely that the Veteran's bilateral foot conditions were due to the injury he sustained in active service. 

The Board finds that service connection is warranted for the Veteran's bilateral foot disability.  Specifically, the Board finds that the probative medical evidence of record is in favor of finding that the Veteran's bilateral foot condition was incurred in or caused by his active service.  The Board finds the August 2020 private medical opinion from Dr. C.H. to carry significant probative weight because Dr. C.H. provided an adequate rationale based on the pertinent evidence of record.  Additionally, there is no opinion of record that directly contradicts the January 2026 medical opinion. Furthermore, the Board notes the Veteran's consistent lay statements of record regarding the onset of his bilateral foot conditions. Notably, the Veteran indicated in medical treatment records from 2017 (prior to the filing of his claim) that his foot conditions began during service from a crush injury.

Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for a bilateral foot disability is warranted. 

 

 

A. ISHIZAWAR

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	David M. Sebstead

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.