HAND IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Army from July 2006 to August 2014, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral hand conditions, claimed as arthritis. The veteran reported an in-service injury around 2009 while playing football, which he believed caused pain and stiffness in both hands. He stated the pain was most noticeable upon waking and eased throughout the day, without preventing his daily duties. Service treatment records were silent regarding any hand complaints, treatment, or diagnosis. A VA examination in May 2017 found normal hands, normal range of motion, and normal muscle strength bilaterally, concluding no current diagnosis associated with the claimed condition and no functional impairment. The Board denied service connection, emphasizing that the existence of a current disability is a cornerstone of any claim. While acknowledging the veteran's pain and competence to report symptoms, the Board noted the lack of a current diagnosis and the absence of any alleged functional impairment due to the pain, as confirmed by the VA examiner. The Board found the evidence persuasively against the claim, rendering the benefit of the doubt doctrine inapplicable.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of hand condition; No functional impairment due to pain; Service treatment records silent

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 22032745
Decision Date: 06/03/22	Archive Date: 06/03/22

DOCKET NO. 17-29 244A
DATE: June 3, 2022

ORDER

Service connection for a right hand condition, claimed as arthritis, is denied.

Service connection for a left hand condition, claimed as arthritis, is denied. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The persuasive evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has had a right hand condition, or symptomology causing functional impairment of earning capacity, during the appeal period.

2. The persuasive evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has had a left hand condition, or symptomology causing functional impairment of earning capacity, during the appeal period.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right hand condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left hand condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 2006 to August 2014.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision issued in February 2015 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston Salem, North Carolina. 

Service connection 

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a); Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of the matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990).

The Veteran asserts that he developed a painful condition in his bilateral hands which first began while he was in service, thus warranting service connection. He explained that the problem with his hands began with an injury in service around 2009 when he fell over his right hand in a stretch position while playing football. He stated he was evaluated and told he had wrist tendinitis. He described experiencing pain in both hands with stiffness later on, without involvement of the fingers.

Service treatment records are silent for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis regarding the hands. 

The Veteran attended a VA hand and finger examination in May 2017. He reported the above-mentioned hand injury from 2009 while playing football in service. At that time, bilateral hand imaging showed normal hands. Diagnostic testing showed normal range of motion in both hands. Muscle strength testing was normal bilaterally. The VA examiner determined that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis associated with the claimed bilateral hand condition. The examiner stated the bilateral hands would not impact the Veteran's ability to perform any type of occupational task.

In his June 2017 substantive appeal, the Veteran reported his hand issues were most noticeable upon waking and became easier to endure as the day progressed. He stated the pain did not prevent him from performing his daily duties.

Based on this evidence, the claim must be denied. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that §§ 1110 and 1131's requirement of the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 323 (2007) (holding that the requirement of a current disability is met when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim). Consequently,
 from performing his daily duties.

Based on this evidence, the claim must be denied. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that §§ 1110 and 1131's requirement of the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 323 (2007) (holding that the requirement of a current disability is met when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim). Consequently, the evidence of record must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed.

However, as the record here does not reflect current diagnoses of a hand condition of any kind, the cornerstone element of service connection has not been met, and service connection is not warranted. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

The Board is cognizant of the holding in Saunders v. Wilkie which stated that where pain causes functional impairment, a disability for VA compensation purposes exists, even if there is no underlying diagnosis. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In sum, pain alone resulting in functional impairment is in fact a disability and should not be summarily discounted as a bar to benefits based on a finding of no current diagnosis. However, while the Veteran experiences hand pain, his medical records and the VA examination do not show that he experiences, any functional impairment due to this pain. Specifically, the VA examiner found no such impairment was present. Importantly, while the Veteran described experiencing pain in his hands, he has not alleged manifestations of similar severity, frequency and duration as those VA has determined by regulation would cause impaired earning capacity in an average person. Wait v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 8 (2020).

The Board acknowledges the statements of the Veteran as to the existence and etiology of his hand pain and notes that the Veteran is competent to give evidence about what he experiences. See, e.g., Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, while the Veteran is competent to report his current symptoms, as a lay person he does not have the education, training, experience to diagnose or opine as to the etiology of the conditions. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The evidence of record shows that the Veteran does not have a right or left hand disorder. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasively against the claims for service connection for a such. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4 th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application); see also Gilbert, supra. The claims are denied. 

 

JEREMY J. OLSEN

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. St. Laurent, 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.