RIGHT-HAND DISABILITY

L.M. YASUI · 2026 · Case ID: A26033089

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served from January 2011 to May 2011, July 2018 to March 2019, and May 2023 to September 2023, appeals a July 2020 rating decision. The veteran initially sought service connection for a right-hand cyst of the little finger, a left-hand disability, asthma, a right-hand disability, a right wrist disability, left and right foot disabilities, and left and right ankle disabilities. At a Board hearing in August 2024, the veteran withdrew the appeals for the right-hand cyst and left-hand disability issues. The Board granted an increased rating for asthma to 60 percent, effective September 22, 2023, finding that the evidence supported intermittent courses of systemic corticosteroids for the period prior to that date. The Board denied service connection for the right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities, finding that the evidence, including VA examinations and treatment records, did not show current diagnoses or functional impairment of earning capacity for these conditions. The Board noted the veteran's lay statements regarding symptoms but found them not competent to diagnose complex musculoskeletal issues. The Board also noted that the veteran was unrepresented at the hearing.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210114-132832

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26033089
Decision Date: 04/09/26 Archive Date: 04/09/26

DOCKET NO. 210114-132832
DATE: April 9, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right-hand cyst of the little finger is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for a left-hand disability is dismissed.

Entitlement to an initial rating of 60 percent, but no higher, prior to September 22, 2023, for asthma is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a right-hand disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the August 2024 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran notified the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) that a withdrawal of the issues of a compensable rating for right-hand cyst of the little finger and a left-hand disability was requested.

2. The weight of the competent and probative evidence shows that the Veteran's asthma has manifested as intermittent (at least three per year) courses of systemic (oral or parenteral) corticosteroids for the period prior to September 22, 2023.

3. The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has current diagnoses for right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities, to include functional impairment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of an initial compensable rating for right-hand cyst of the little finger by the Veteran are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

2. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of service connection for a left-hand disability by the Veteran are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

3. The criteria for an initial rating of 60 percent, but no higher, for asthma are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6602.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right-hand disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

8. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

9. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from January 2011 to May 2011, July 2018 to March 2019, and May 2023 to September 2023. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2020 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Veteran selected the Board's Hearing docket in the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) review system by submitting a VA Form 10182 (Hearing Request: Board (Notice of Disagreement)) in January 2021. In August 2024, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The transcript is of record
IONS

Based upon the selection of the Hearing docket, the Board may consider the evidence of record as of July 24, 2020 - the date of the rating decision on appeal, and evidence submitted at or within 90 days of the August 15, 2024, Board hearing. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.302. If the Veteran submitted evidence that was added to the record after July 24, 2020, and before the August 15, 2024, Board hearing, or more than 90 days following the Board hearing, the Board did not consider it. If the Veteran wishes to have VA consider any evidence that was not considered, a supplemental claim should be submitted identifying such evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

Regarding representation, the record shows that the Veteran was previously represented by Jan D. Dils, Attorney; however, in February 2024, such representation was revoked. See 2/9/2024 VA 21-4138; see also 2/16/2024 Attorney Revocation Letter to Veteran. As such, the Veteran's former private attorney will not be listed on this decision. Moreover, at the June 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran confirmed that he wished to proceed pro se (unrepresented). Based on this, the Veteran is not represented, and the Board will not list a representative on this decision.

Finally, the Board notes that, during the July 2020 rating decision, the AOJ determined that service treatment records showed evidence of a firm raised area on near the right wrist, ankle joint pain, and left ankle sprain. The Board is bound by the above favorable findings, absent clear and unmistakable evidence and sees no reason to disturb them. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c).

Dismissed Issues

1. An initial compensable rating for right-hand cyst of the little finger.

2. Service connection for a left-hand disability.

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. Only an appellant, or an appellant's authorized representative, may withdraw an appeal. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205(a). "[I]t is well settled that withdrawal of a claim is only effective where the withdrawal is explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant." DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011); Acree v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Hanson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 29 (1996).

In the present case, the Veteran, through his appearance at the August 2024 Board hearing, expressed his desire to withdraw his appeal of the issues of an initial compensable rating for right-hand cyst of the little finger and service connection for a left-hand disability. During the August 2024 Board hearing, the undersigned explained to the Veteran that, by withdrawing the issues at the Board hearing, VA would take no further action on those issues and that, if he wished to seek those same benefits in the future, he would have to file a new claim, and that if any benefits were awarded as a result, they would be effective from the date of the new claim. The Veteran expressed his understanding and the consequences of withdrawing the particular issues on appeal. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that such withdrawals were explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences. Indeed, the Veteran showed no desire to continue the appeal for these issues. As such, the Board finds that there remains no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration since the withdrawals of these issues were effective. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these issues and they are dismissed.

3. An initial rating in excess
those same benefits in the future, he would have to file a new claim, and that if any benefits were awarded as a result, they would be effective from the date of the new claim. The Veteran expressed his understanding and the consequences of withdrawing the particular issues on appeal. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that such withdrawals were explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences. Indeed, the Veteran showed no desire to continue the appeal for these issues. As such, the Board finds that there remains no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration since the withdrawals of these issues were effective. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review these issues and they are dismissed.

3. An initial rating in excess of 30 percent prior to September 22, 2023, for asthma.

Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The percentages are based on the average impairment of earning capacity as a result of service-connected disability, and separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities and the criteria for specific ratings. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. All reasonable doubt as to the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the primary concern is the present level of disability. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). However, the Board must also consider staged ratings, which are appropriate in this case. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 50910 (2007).

Hyphenated diagnostic codes are used when a rating under one diagnostic code requires the use of an additional diagnostic code to identify the basis for the evaluation assigned; the additional code is shown after the hyphen.

The evaluation of the same disability under several diagnostic codes, known as pyramiding, must be avoided; however, separate ratings may be assigned for distinct disabilities resulting from the same injury so long as the symptomatology for one disability is not duplicative of or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other. Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 262 (1994); 38 C.F.R. § 4.14.

In view of the number of atypical instances it is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified. Findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom, and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will, however, be expected in all instances. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21.

In evaluating the evidence, the Board has been charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to do so. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000). In doing so, the Board is free to favor one medical opinion over another, provided it offers an adequate basis for doing so. Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429, 433 (1995).

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA. VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record. Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

The Veteran is competent to report symptoms observable by sense and contemporaneous medical diagnoses, but not competent to diagnose or assess the etiology of complex medical disorders. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1377; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a).

The Veteran contends entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent prior to September 22, 2023, for his service-connected asthma disability.

For background
there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

The Veteran contends entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent prior to September 22, 2023, for his service-connected asthma disability.

For background, the July 2020 rating decision granted service connection for asthma and assigned a disability rating of 30 percent, effective March 17, 2019, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6602. Additionally, the December 2023 rating decision granted an increased rating of 60 percent, effective September 22, 2023.

Diagnostic Code 6602 provides a 10 percent rating for FEV-1 of 71 to 80 percent predicted, or FEV-1/FVC of 71 to 80 percent, or intermittent inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy. A 30 percent rating for FEV-1 of 56 to 70 percent predicted, or FEV-1/FVC of 56 to 70 percent, or daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy, or inhalational anti-inflammatory medication. A 60 percent for FEV-1 of 40 to 55 percent predicted, or FEV-1/FVC of 40 to 55 percent, or at least monthly visits to a physician for required care of exacerbations, or intermittent (at least three per year) courses of systemic (oral or parenteral) corticosteroids. A maximum 100 percent rating for bronchial asthma with an FEV-1 of less than 40 percent predicted, or FEV-1/FVC less than 40 percent, or more than one attack per week with episodes of respiratory failure, or the disability requires daily use of systemic (oral or parenteral) high dose corticosteroids or immunosuppressive medications. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, DC 6602.

When the pulmonary function tests (PFTs) are not consistent with clinical findings, evaluation should be based on the PFTs unless the examiner states why they are not a valid indication of respiratory functional impairment in a particular case. 38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(3).

Post-bronchodilator studies are required when PFTs are done for disability evaluation purposes, except when the results of pre-bronchodilator pulmonary function tests are normal or when the examiner determines that post-bronchodilator studies should not be done and states why. 38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(4).

When evaluating based on PFTs, raters are to use post-bronchodilator results in applying the evaluation criteria in the rating schedule unless the post-bronchodilator results were poorer than the pre-bronchodilator results. In those cases, use the pre-bronchodilator values for rating purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(5).

After review of the competent and relevant medical and lay evidence, the Board finds that an initial rating of 60 percent, but no higher, for the service-connected asthma is warranted.

Turning to the competent and probative medical evidence, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2020. The Veteran reported episodes of shortness of breath, wheezing, and difficulty breathing. The examiner reported that the Veteran did not require the use of oral or parenteral corticosteroid, oral bronchodilator, antibiotics, or oxygen therapy. Additionally, the Veteran required the use of daily bronchodilator therapy and anti-inflammatory medication. Further, the Veteran did not have any episodes of respiratory failure in the past 12 months or any physician visits for exacerbations. The examination included a pulmonary function analysis from July 2019, which showed pre-bronchodilator testing of FVC of 36 percent, an FEV-1 of 23 percent, and an FEV-1/FVC of 63 percent. Also, post-bronchodilator testing showed an FVC of 41 percent, an FEV-1 of 24 percent, and an FEV-1/FVC of 57 percent. Finally, the examiner opined that there was no functional impact. See 7/16/2020 C&P Examination
anti-inflammatory medication. Further, the Veteran did not have any episodes of respiratory failure in the past 12 months or any physician visits for exacerbations. The examination included a pulmonary function analysis from July 2019, which showed pre-bronchodilator testing of FVC of 36 percent, an FEV-1 of 23 percent, and an FEV-1/FVC of 63 percent. Also, post-bronchodilator testing showed an FVC of 41 percent, an FEV-1 of 24 percent, and an FEV-1/FVC of 57 percent. Finally, the examiner opined that there was no functional impact. See 7/16/2020 C&P Examination. The Board finds the July 2020 VA examination to be adequate and probative for rating purposes, as it reflects an in-person examination, a recorded history from the Veteran, objective testing, and medical expertise. See Nieves-Rodrigues v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The Board places much weight on this competent medical evidence.

The Veteran's medical treatment records showed an April 2019 pulmonary function test, which showed pre-bronchodilator testing of FVC of 47 percent, an FEV-1 of 29 percent, and an FEV-1/FVC of 61 percent. Post-bronchodilator testing showed an FVC of 43 percent, an FEV-1 of 53 percent, and an FEV-1/FVC of 65 percent. See 5/14/2019 Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility, at pages 2. Additionally, a March 2020 pulmonary function test showed pre-bronchodilator testing of FVC of 46 percent, an FEV-1 of 36 percent, and an FEV-1/FVC of 77 percent. See 8/19/2024 Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility, at pages 8.

Moreover, medical treatment records showed prescriptions for prednisone in July 2019, October 2019, December 2019, and April 2020. See 8/13/2019 Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility; see also 12/5/2019 Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility; 1/6/2020 Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility; 8/19/2024 Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility, at page 12.

Based on the totality of the evidence above, and after resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the Veteran's disability more nearly approximates the criteria for a rating of 60 percent, but no higher, for the Veteran's service-connected asthma for the period prior to September 22, 2023. In this regard, as discussed above, the record showed that the Veteran was prescribed prednisone in July 2019, October 2019, December 2019, and April 2020, which meets the criteria for the requirement of intermittent (at least three per year) courses of systemic corticosteroids for the period prior to September 22, 2023.

Furthermore, based on the totality of the evidence discussed above, the Board finds that the competent and probative evidence shows that an initial rating in excess of 60 percent for the Veteran's asthma is not warranted for the period prior to September 22, 2023. In this regard, the Veteran has not contended, and the medical evidence does not reflect, that there is any evidence of FEV-1 less than 40 percent predicted, FEV-1/FVC less than 40 percent, or more than one attack per week with episodes of respiratory failure, or requirement for daily use of systemic high dose corticosteroids or immuno-suppressive medication at any time during the relevant appeal period (prior to September 22, 2023). Therefore, the criteria for a rating of 100 percent under DC 6602 have not been met.

The Board has also considered the Veteran's lay contentions that he experienced symptoms, such as episodes of shortness of breath, wheezing, and difficulty breathing. He is competent to describe such observable symptoms. However, the Veteran is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of this disorder according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran's disability has been provided by the medical personnel who examined him during the current period on appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the July 2020 VA examination report and the clinical records) directly address the criteria under which his disability is evaluated. As such, the Board finds these records to be more probative than the Veteran's subjective complaints of increased symptomatology.

In light of the above,
episodes of shortness of breath, wheezing, and difficulty breathing. He is competent to describe such observable symptoms. However, the Veteran is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of this disorder according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran's disability has been provided by the medical personnel who examined him during the current period on appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the July 2020 VA examination report and the clinical records) directly address the criteria under which his disability is evaluated. As such, the Board finds these records to be more probative than the Veteran's subjective complaints of increased symptomatology.

In light of the above, after review of all the relevant competent medical and lay evidence of record, the Board finds that, for the period prior to September 22, 2023, the Veteran's asthma has not manifested in FEV-1 less than 40 percent predicted, FEV-1/FVC less than 40 percent, or more than one attack per week with episodes of respiratory failure, or requirement for daily use of systemic high dose corticosteroids or immuno-suppressive medication, as required for a 100 percent rating. The Board therefore finds that the criteria for an initial rating in excess of 60 percent for asthma have not been met at any time during the relevant appeal period (prior to September 22, 2023). As the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim (that is to say, is neither in approximate balance nor nearly equal), the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is inapplicable, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.97; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (2021).

4. Service connection for a right-hand disability.

5. Service connection for a right-wrist disability.

6. Service connection for a left foot disability.

7. Service connection for a right foot disability.

8. Service connection for a left ankle disability.

9. Service connection for a right ankle disability.

Service Connection

Service connection will be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Where a disease is first diagnosed after discharge, service connection will be granted when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes it was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection requires evidence showing: (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 disability incurred or aggravated by service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The scope of a disability claim includes any disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 4-6 (2009).

The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). In relevant part, 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) requires that VA give "due consideration" to "all pertinent medical and lay evidence" in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

The Veteran contends service connection for right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities.

Here, the weight of the evidence shows that the Veteran's treatment records lack current diagnoses for right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities. In addition, post-service treatment records show no indication of any symptoms that functionally impair the Veteran's earning capacity. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the Board finds that the competent and probative evidence of record weighs against a finding that the Veteran has current diagnoses of right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities.

In further support of such a finding, in July 2020, the Veteran was afforded VA ankle, wrist, hand, and foot examinations. Upon an in-person physical examination, the examiner evaluated
evidence shows that the Veteran's treatment records lack current diagnoses for right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities. In addition, post-service treatment records show no indication of any symptoms that functionally impair the Veteran's earning capacity. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the Board finds that the competent and probative evidence of record weighs against a finding that the Veteran has current diagnoses of right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities.

In further support of such a finding, in July 2020, the Veteran was afforded VA ankle, wrist, hand, and foot examinations. Upon an in-person physical examination, the examiner evaluated the Veteran and considered the pertinent medical history, including the Veteran's lay statements of pain, and competently, credibly, and persuasively concluded that no further testing was required and that the Veteran had no current diagnoses of right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities. In this regard, the VA examinations showed that the Veteran had normal range of motion and strength, and no objective evidence of pain. See 7/16/2020 C&P Examination.

Moreover, at the Board hearing, the Veteran testified that in 2020, the Veteran did not sought treatment for the right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities. See 8/15/2024 Hearing Transcript, at page 4. Consistent with the Veteran's testimony, the record does not show treatment or complaints for these disabilities.

The Board finds that the July 2020 VA examination reports reflect in-person examinations and a recorded history from the Veteran, and the Board finds them probative and places much weight on this competent medical evidence. In addition, the competent and probative evidence, to include post-service treatment records and the July 2020 VA examination reports do not tend to support a finding of functional impairment of earning capacity.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's reports that he currently experiences symptoms of right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities. The Veteran is competent to describe such observable symptoms. However, as a lay person without medical training or expertise, he is not competent to say that he has right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities, which are complex medical issues concerning the body's musculoskeletal system that does not lend themselves to lay opinion. The Veteran has not been shown to have the training, knowledge, and/or expertise necessary to diagnose such complex medical issues. Therefore, the Veteran's statement that he has right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities are not considered competent evidence demonstrating current disabilities and lack weight. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377.

The Board also acknowledges the Veteran's own assertions that he has right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities that had their onset in service but finds it of limited probative value in adjudicating this matter. While lay evidence may be competent on a variety of matters concerning the nature and cause of a disability, etiology of dysfunctions and disorders is a medical determination and generally must be established by medical findings and opinion. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1376-77; see also Colantonio v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2010) (recognizing that in some cases lay testimony "falls short" in proving an issue that requires expert medical knowledge). In the present case, the Veteran is a lay person without appropriate medical training and expertise, and thus, is not competent to make an etiological conclusion regarding the cause of his reported right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities. Id.

Thus, based on the relevant evidence above, the Board finds that, while the Veteran asserts that he has a current diagnosis of right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities, the more probative and persuasive evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran has current diagnoses of right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities, or that such diagnoses had their onset in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d).

Service connection claims require that the Veteran have a current disability, such as causing impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; see also Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claimant satisfies the current disability requirement when the claimant has a disability proximate to the filing of a claim for VA benefits or has a disability during the pendency of that claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); see also Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013). For the reasons explained above, this has not been met here. Indeed, the evidence does not show that the requirement of current disabilities, proximate to the filing of a claim for VA benefits was met. Additionally, the evidence does not show, and the Veteran does not contend, that the alleged symptoms of right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities reach the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity.

The competent and probative evidence persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran has current diagnoses of right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities. As such, the service connection claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

(Continued on the next page)

Finally, the Board notes that, should the Veteran have evidence showing that he meets the criteria for diagnoses of right hand, right wrist, and bilateral foot and ankle disabilities, or should he meet such diagnostic criteria in the future, he may file a Supplemental Claim and submit this evidence at any time. 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.

L.M. YASUI

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J.F.

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