PERIPHERAL NERVE PARALYSIS

E. I. VELEZ · 2026 · Case ID: A26029706

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, an Air Force Veteran who served from April 1989 to October 1998 and again from September 2001 to July 2003, appealed the denial of service connection for loss of feeling in his left and right hands. The initial denial occurred in June 2014, with the agency of original jurisdiction finding no current disability or in-service event. The Veteran later filed a claim in February 2019, asserting his hand condition was due to exposure to P-D-680 and Trichloroethylene during service while cleaning hydraulics. This claim was considered new and relevant evidence under the Appeals Modernization Act, warranting readjudication. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the Veteran's February 2019 statement, service treatment records, VA treatment records, and private treatment records. The service treatment records indicated good hand grip strength and no loss of sensation. No current disability or persistent symptoms related to a hand condition were found in any of the records. The Board determined that the evidence did not establish a current disability, a prerequisite for service connection. Consequently, the Board denied service connection for loss of feeling in both the left and right hands, finding the criteria were not met.

Rationale

No current disability established; Service treatment records negative for complaints or treatment; No persistent symptoms impairing earning capacity

Service Branch

AIR FORCE

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

200416-371465

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26029706
Decision Date: 04/01/26 Archive Date: 04/01/26

DOCKET NO. 200416-371465
DATE: April 1, 2026

ORDER

New and relevant evidence having been submitted, readjudication of the claim for service connection for loss of feeling left hand is granted.

New and relevant evidence having been submitted, readjudication of the claim for service connection for loss of feeling right hand is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for loss of feeling left hand is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for loss of feeling right hand is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In a June 2014 rating decision, the AOJ denied service connection for loss of feeling in the left and right hands on the grounds that the evidence did not show the Veteran had a current disability or that an in-service injury or disease had occurred. The Veteran did not appeal the June 2014 rating decision.

2. In February 2019, the Veteran filed a claim seeking service connection for loss of feeling in his right and left hands and included a statement asserting that his condition was due to exposure to P-D-680 and Trichloroethylene while in service when he was degreasing and cleaning hydraulics. This evidence is new in that the statement was not previously associated with the claims file, and it is relevant in that it raises a new theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed.

3. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran had a bilateral hand disability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. New and relevant evidence having been submitted, the criteria for readjudication of the claim for service connection for loss of feeling left hand have been met. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.2501 (2025).

2. New and relevant evidence having been submitted, the criteria for readjudication of the claim for service connection for loss of feeling right hand have been met. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.2501 (2025).

3. The criteria for service connection for loss of feeling left hand have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2024); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2025).

4. The criteria for service connection for loss of feeling right hand have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2024); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2025).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served honorably in the U.S. Air Force from April 1989 to October 1998, and from September 2001 to July 2003. The Veteran passed away in July 2020, and the Appellant has been substituted as claimant for purposes of the claims that were pending on the date of the Veteran's death. See August 2020 Letter.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2019 rating decision by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ).

In the April 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on May 7, 2024 with his substituted wife, and a copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the claims file.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2019 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Appellant, or her 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 Appellant 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
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.

Finally, the Board notes that the issues on appeal were characterized as whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the previously denied claims of loss of feeling in the left and right hands in the April 2019 rating decision. However, as the April 2019 rating decision was issued after the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) became effective on February 19, 2019, the AOJ should have applied the more lenient "new and relevant evidence" standard to the Veteran's claim. See 38 C.F.R. 3.2501. During the May 2024 Board Hearing, the VLJ explained the new and relevant evidence requirement under the AMA to the Appellant and her representative. Accordingly, the Board has recharacterized the issues on appeal.

1. New and relevant evidence having been submitted, readjudication of the claims of entitlement to service connection for loss of feeling in the left and right hands is granted.

In a June 2014 rating decision, the AOJ denied service connection for loss of feeling in the left and right hands on the grounds that the evidence did not show the Veteran had a current disability or that an in-service injury or disease had occurred. The Veteran did not appeal the June 2014 rating decision.

In February 2019, the Veteran filed a claim seeking service connection for loss of feeling in his right and left hands and included a statement asserting that his hand condition was due to exposure to P-D-680 and Trichloroethylene while in service when he was degreasing and cleaning hydraulic systems. See February 2019 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim.

A previously denied claim may be readjudicated if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with a supplemental claim.? 38?C.F.R. §?3.2501.? New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators.? 38?C.F.R. §?3.2501(a)(1).? Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim, including evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed.? Id.

The Board finds that the Veteran's February 2019 statement is both new and relevant evidence within the meaning of VA regulations. First, the statement was not part of the record at the time of the June 2014 rating decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). Further, this evidence is new in that it raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. Id. Accordingly, readjudication of the Veteran's claims for service connection for loss of feeling in the left and right hands is warranted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for loss of feeling left hand

3. Entitlement to service connection for loss of feeling right hand

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; 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).??

When, after careful consideration of all the evidence, there is a reasonable doubt regarding service connection, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the veteran.? 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); 38?C.F.R. §?3.102.? The phrase "reasonable doubt" means there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim.? Id.? The evidence is not in approximate balance when the evidence "persuasively favors one side or the other."? Lynch
-service disease or injury.? Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).??

When, after careful consideration of all the evidence, there is a reasonable doubt regarding service connection, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the veteran.? 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); 38?C.F.R. §?3.102.? The phrase "reasonable doubt" means there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim.? Id.? The evidence is not in approximate balance when the evidence "persuasively favors one side or the other."? Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021).??

Whether service connection is claimed on a direct, secondary, or other basis, a necessary element for establishing such a claim is the existence of a current disability.? See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997).? In the absence of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for VA benefits.? See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).? The current disability element of a service connection claim can be satisfied if a Veteran had a disability at any time during the appeal period.? See generally McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007) (a Veteran may be eligible for benefits for a disability which existed at the time of the filing of the claim or at any time during the pendency of the claim, even if the disability resolved before the Board could issue a decision).? Even without evidence of a definitive medical diagnosis, persistent symptoms such as pain can satisfy the requirement if those symptoms impair the claimant's earning capacity.? See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

In this case, the competent evidence of record does not show that the Veteran had a current bilateral hand disability. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not contain any notations regarding complaints or treatment for a hand condition. Indeed, a May 2011 STR indicates that the Veteran had "good hand grip strength" and "no loss of sensation." In addition, the Veteran's VA treatment records do not contain any mention of complaints or treatment for a hand or upper extremity neurological condition. Nor do any of the Veteran's private treatment refer to any type of hand condition. Further, the Veteran did not submit any evidence that he suffers from persistent symptoms of a hand condition such that would impair his earning capacity. See Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1364-65. In short, there is no evidence in the record, and the Veteran did not submit any evidence, including lay evidence, that he was diagnosed with a hand condition or otherwise experienced symptoms of a hand condition with resulting functional impairment.

The AOJ did not provide the Veteran with a medical examination regarding his claims for service connection for loss of feeling in the left and right hands. ?VA must provide a medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent and recurring symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing that certain diseases manifested during an applicable presumptive period; (3) an indication that the disability may be associated with the Veteran's service or with another service-connected disability; and (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim. ?McLendon?v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81?(2006). ?The threshold for determining whether the evidence indicates that there may be a nexus between the current disability and an in-service event is a low one. ?Id. at 83.

The Board finds that the requirements for a VA examination have not been met in this instance - even under the low threshold established by?McLendon. ?There is no competent evidence, lay or medical, in the record that the Veteran was diagnosed with a hand condition or that he had persistent or recurrent symptoms of a hand or upper extremity neurological disability. Because there is no competent evidence that the Veteran had a hand disability, remand for a VA medical opinion is not appropriate.

(Continued on Next Page)?

The Board is sympathetic to the Appellant's claims. However, as there is no evidence that the Veteran had a hand disability, the claims for service connection for loss of feeling in the right and left hands are denied.

E. I. VELE
examination have not been met in this instance - even under the low threshold established by?McLendon. ?There is no competent evidence, lay or medical, in the record that the Veteran was diagnosed with a hand condition or that he had persistent or recurrent symptoms of a hand or upper extremity neurological disability. Because there is no competent evidence that the Veteran had a hand disability, remand for a VA medical opinion is not appropriate.

(Continued on Next Page)?

E. I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Zimmerman, K.

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