Citation Nr: 18140402 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 14-28 056A DATE: October 2, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disorder, claimed as arthritis, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial, compensable rating for residuals of a right wrist fracture is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1990 to December 2011. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, that denied service connection for a left wrist disorder and granted service connection for residuals of a right wrist fracture with an initial noncompensable disability rating. The Veteran has also perfected an appeal of an October 2015 rating decision that denied service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. See Rating Decision dated October 26, 2015; Notice of Disagreement dated November 6, 2015; Statement of the Case dated January 29, 2016; and VA Form 9 dated March 4, 2016. At present, this issue has not been certified to the Board for appellate disposition. Certification is used for administrative purposes and does not serve to either confer or deprive the Board of jurisdiction over an issue. 38 C.F.R. § 19.35 (2017). However, when an appeal is certified to the Board for appellate review and the appellate record is transferred to the Board, the appellant and his or her representative, if any, will be notified in writing of the certification and transfer and of the time limit for requesting a change in representation, for requesting a personal hearing, and for submitting additional evidence. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.36, 20.1304(a). As the required notifications have not been sent in regard to the VA Form 9 filed in March 2016, the Board declines to take any further action on that issue at this time. This delay is needed to ensure that the Veteran is afforded full due process in the matter. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103; Gray v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 313, 327 (2015) (Due Process protections apply to disability compensation proceedings before the Board) (citing Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed.Cir.2009)); see also Carter v. McDonald, 794 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (regulatory requirement of notice in § 1.525(d) can only sensibly be construed to require that the notice to counsel be timely, which requires, at a minimum, notice before the expressly stated deadline has passed). Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for residuals of a right wrist fracture. Following the issuance of the July 2014 Statement of the Case, additional relevant evidence, including VA outpatient treatment records and a March 2017 VA examination report, has been associated with the file. As such, remand for the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case is required. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31. The Veteran should also be scheduled for an additional VA examination of his right wrist, as described below. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disorder, claimed as arthritis, is remanded. During service in August 2001, the Veteran fell on his left wrist while playing basketball. On examination, it was noted his left wrist was swollen and tender. An x-ray of the left wrist revealed a small fracture of the distal radius. The Veteran’s left wrist was placed in a cast. See Service treatment record (STR) dated August 28, 2001. The cast was removed in October 2001, at which time the examiner diagnosed a history of left distal radius fracture, healed. See STR, dated October 23, 2001. At present, the medical evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a left wrist disorder. However, he has reported experiencing pain in his left wrist. See VA General Medical examination report, dated October 20, 2011. On remand, medical comment is required as to whether the left wrist pain of which he has complained results in functional impairment such that the pain may be considered a disability for VA compensation purposes. Saunders v. Wilkie, No. 2017-1466, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8467 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2018). Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records, dated from December 2016 forward. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA orthopedic examination of his wrists. Left wrist (a) The examiner should diagnose all current left wrist disorders found present. All necessary diagnostic testing, including x-rays if appropriate, should be performed, and all clinical findings reported in detail (b) If a current left wrist disorder is not diagnosed, the examiner should elicit information from the Veteran as to any claimed functional impairment related to his left wrist pain such that any such pain may be considered a disability for VA compensation purposes. (c) The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any current diagnosed left wrist disorder and/or functional impairment of the left wrist had its clinical onset during active service or is related to any incident of service, to include the Veteran’s left wrist injury in August 2001. In providing this opinion, the examiner should acknowledge and consider the Veteran’s service treatment records showing that he fell on his wrist while playing basketball in August 2001. It was noted his left wrist was swollen and tender, and an x-ray of the left wrist revealed a small fracture of the distal radius. His left wrist was placed in a cast. See Service treatment record (STR) dated August 28, 2001. The cast was removed in October 2001, at which time the examiner diagnosed a history of left distal radius fracture, healed. See STR, dated October 23, 2001. Right wrist The examiner should test the range of motion using a goniometer in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and non-weight bearing, for the wrists. If the examiner is unable to conduct one or more of the above tests or finds that it is unnecessary, the examiner must provide an explanation. In any event, the type of test performed (i.e. active or passive, weightbearing or non-weight bearing), must be specified. The examiner should also state whether the examination is taking place during a period of flare-up. If not, the examiner should ask the Veteran to describe the flare-ups he experiences, including: frequency, duration, characteristics, precipitating and alleviating factors, severity and/or extent of functional impairment he experiences during a flare-up of symptoms and/or after repeated use over time. Based on the Veteran’s lay statements and any additional relevant evidence of record, the examiner should provide an opinion estimating any additional degrees of limited motion caused by functional loss during a flare-up or after repeated use over time. To the extent possible, the examiner must express any functional loss in terms of additional degrees of limited motion. If the examiner cannot estimate the degrees of additional range of motion loss during flare-ups or after repetitive use without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training). The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached. 3. Finally, after completing any other development that may be warranted, readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran and his representative must be given a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board. P. M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Denton, Buck