What To Do If C&p Doc Diagnosed Me With Something But It Was Not Considered?

[pilgrim01]

Well, I was going through my c-file and noticed that the doc diagnosed me with tinea pedis that I did not claim. Since I was NEVER seen for this in service and it is not in my SMR, can I now file a claim for it? If so, how do I?

Keep in mind, my C&P was on 10-22-08, I retired on 10-31-2008. Can I still use his diagnosis to file a claim for tinea pedis? Does that mean I should file a NOD?

Edited February 12, 2010 by pilgrim01

[Berta]

You would have to prove that this condition stemmed from service.This might not be a ratable condition.

You could search the condition at the BVA web site to see if they do rate it but still your would need evidence it began in service.

[pilgrim01]

You would have to prove that this condition stemmed from service.This might not be a ratable condition.

You could search the condition at the BVA web site to see if they do rate it but still your would need evidence it began in service.

I was diagnosed during the C&P exam which was before I retired (see dates below). Wouldn't that be considered "in service"?

[Pete53]

yes

[Commander Bob]

tinea pedis? Does that mean.....?

tinea pedis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlete%27s_foot

Edited February 12, 2010 by Commander Bob

[pilgrim01]

So, I can file for Tinea Pedis even though I was never seen for it while in service, but the doctor diagnosed it during my C&P exam?

[carlie]

So, I can file for Tinea Pedis even though I was never seen for it while in service, but the doctor diagnosed it during my C&P exam?

pilgrim,

Heck - you can file claims for bad breath and a hangnail,

winning the claim is a different question.

Tinea Pedis is a foot fungus like athelete's feet.

What you would have to file on is a residual disability

that's a result of your Tinea Pedis.

Here's a BVA Case that won.

Keep in mind that BVA Cases DO NOT set precedent.

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp09/files5/0942833.txt

Citation Nr: 0942833

Decision Date: 11/10/09 Archive Date: 11/17/09

DOCKET NO. 08-13 059 ) DATE

)

)

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for tinea pedis, claimed as

foot fungus.

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

David Traskey, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active service from December 1968 to December

1970.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals

(Board) on appeal from a decision of April 2007 by the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, Regional Office (RO).

In May 2009, the Veteran testified at a hearing held before

the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge (AVLJ).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran was treated on more than one occasion for

foot sores and a subsequent foot infection in service.

2. The Veteran has currently diagnosed tinea pedis.

3. The Board finds the Veteran's statements concerning

continuity of foot problems since discharge from service to

be credible.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinea

pedis, claimed as foot fungus, are met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110,

5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2009).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this decision, the Board grants service connection for

tinea pedis, which constitutes a complete grant of the

benefit sought on appeal. As such, no discussion of VA's

duty to notify and assist is necessary.

The Veteran in this case contends that his currently

diagnosed foot disability is related to service, and

particularly to his service in the Republic of Vietnam. In

support, he reports a continuity of foot problems since

discharge from service.

Service connection may be granted for disease or injury

incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110

(West 2002). Establishing service connection generally

requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2)

medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-

service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and

(3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-

service disease or injury and the present disability.

Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. §

3.303(a) (2009).

Service connection may also be granted for any disease

diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence,

including that pertinent to service, establishes that the

disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. 3.303(d).

Presumptive periods are not intended to limit service

connection to diseases so diagnosed when the evidence

warrants direct service connection. The presumptive

provisions of the statute and Department of Veterans Affairs

regulations implementing them are intended as liberalizations

applicable when the evidence would not warrant service

connection without their aid. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Service treatment records (STRs) associated with the claims

file show that the Veteran was treated on more than one

occasion for foot sores and a subsequent foot infection. See

April 1970 STRs. The Veteran was also afforded a clinical

evaluation and physical examination in December 1970 prior to

discharge from service. No foot abnormalities were found at

that time.

Post-service VA treatment records dated January 2007 show

that the Veteran was diagnosed with and treated for bilateral

tinea pedis and pruritis.

The Veteran was also afforded a VA Compensation and Pension

(C&P) examination in April 2007. He reported the date of

onset of the foot fungus to be 1968. The foot fungus,

according to the Veteran was characterized by burning and

itching sensations, along with skin splitting and breakdown.

It was noted that the Veteran used prescribed foot cream

several times per week without significant improvement. A

physical examination revealed evidence of discolored toenails

with increased subungual debris.

The examiner reviewed the claims file and noted that the

Veteran was treated for foot problems in service. However,

the examiner concluded that it was not at least as likely as

not that the Veteran's in-service foot infection was related

to the currently diagnosed tinea pedis. The examiner noted

that the use of Phisophex in service suggested that the

Veteran had a bacterial foot infection. Tinea pedis,

according to the examiner, was a separate and distinct

clinical condition from the in-service bacterial foot

infection.

Also associated with the claims file are private treatment

records dated July 2007 from J. Tang, D.P.M. The Veteran

reported subjective symptoms of foot itchiness since 1970

after serving in Vietnam. A physical examination of the

Veteran's skin showed evidence of annular scaling to the

plantar feet bilaterally with interdigital maceration. The

impression was interdigital tinea pedis. A follow-up private

treatment note dated August 2007 also shows that the Veteran

had erythrasma.

The Veteran testified before the undersigned AVLJ in May

2009. Specifically, the Veteran reported subjective symptoms

of itching, burning, and peeling of the skin on his feet

since returning from Vietnam. The Veteran testified that

these symptoms progressively worsened over the intervening

years.

Given the evidence of record, the Board finds that the

evidence supports a grant of service connection for bilateral

tinea pedis in this case on the basis of continuity of

symptomatology. See generally, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2009).

Continuity of symptomatology may be established if (1) the

condition was "noted" during service; (2) there is evidence

of post-service continuity of the same symptomatology; and

(3) there is medical, or in certain circumstances, lay

evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the

post-service symptomatology. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.

App. 303, 307 (2007); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495-

97 (1997)).

As noted above, STRs reflect that the Veteran was treated on

more than one occasion for foot sores and a subsequent foot

infection. Thus, this condition was "noted" during

service. Subsequent statements and hearing testimony made by

the Veteran as well as post-service evidence of record showed

evidence of tinea pedis and continuity of the same in-service

symptomatology. See Veteran's February, July, and November

2007 statements and November 2008 substantive appeal; see

also Veteran's May 2009 hearing testimony.

Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran,

service connection for tinea pedis, claimed as foot fungus,

is granted. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §

3.102 (2009); see also, Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313

(Fed. Cir. 2009).

ORDER

Service connection for tinea pedis, claimed as foot fungus,

is granted.