Citation Nr: 18145106 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/26/18 DOCKET NO. 14-35 316A DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date prior to October 6, 2011 for the grant of a 40 percent rating for residuals, fracture left navicular bone is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left elbow and shoulder condition is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s claim for an increased rating was received October 6, 2011 and the evidence of record does not show that a worsening of his service-connected residuals, fracture left navicular bone occurred within the year prior to the receipt of his claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior to October 6, 2011 for the grant of a 40 percent rating for residuals, fracture left navicular bone have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from November 1965 to November 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2012 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to an Earlier Effective Date The Veteran seeks an effective date earlier than October 6, 2011 for the establishment of the 40 percent rating for his service-connected residuals, fracture left navicular bone. He does not dispute that his claim for an increased rating was received by VA on the date noted above, but rather, asserts that he is entitled to the 40 percent rating as of 2003 because the evidence of record shows that he suffered from left wrist ankylosis at that time. See April 2012 Notice of Disagreement. The effective date of an award of increased compensation shall be the earliest date as of which it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, but only if the claim for an increase is received within one year from such date. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). Where the increase in disability occurs more than one year prior to the date of claim, the effective date for an award of increased compensation will be the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1); Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 (2015). As noted above, the Veteran asserts that his left wrist ankylosis has been present since his surgery 2003. See April 2012 Notice of Disagreement; October 2013 Substantive Appeal. As this increase occurred more than one year prior to the date VA receive his claim for an increased rating, the effective date of his increased rating is the date his claim was received by VA. See Gaston, supra. The Veteran does not assert that he submitted an increased rating claim prior to October 2011. Although his medical records show that he did have surgery in 2003, this surgery was performed by a non-VA provider, and there is no indication that the records relating to this surgery or his subsequent treatment in 2003 or 2005 were received by VA prior to October 2011. Thus, these records cannot form the basis of an informal claim for an increase under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.157 prior to March 2015. Consequently, an effective date prior to October 6, 2011 for the establishment of a 40 percent rating for residuals, fracture left navicular bone is not warranted. REMANDED ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a left elbow and shoulder condition is remanded. The Veteran has reported pain, numbness, weakness and paresthesia in his left upper extremity during the appeal period and has been diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. He contends that his left upper extremity symptoms are caused or aggravated by his service-connected residuals, fracture left navicular bone and his left wrist ankylosis, and has provided some general medical articles concerning ulnar nerve entrapment. See Medical Articles received April 2012. Although a VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s left upper extremity carpal tunnel syndrome was not related to service, the examiner did not review or address these articles. Additionally, it appears that the opinion was provided before electrophysiologic findings were completed. A February 2012 addendum notes that the Veteran suffered from left ulnar neuropathy at the elbow in addition to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, but did not state whether left ulnar neuropathy at the elbow was caused or aggravated by the Veteran’s service-connected left wrist disability. Additionally, in the August 2018 Appellate brief, the Veteran’s representative asserts that the VA examiner did not properly consider whether the Veteran’s left upper extremity pain was a disability. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). These issues should be address by an addendum medical opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA medical records and ask the Veteran to provide authorizations for any private medical records he would like considered in connection with his appeal. 2. Schedule a VA examination to address the nature, onset and etiology of the Veteran’s left upper extremity disorders, including (but not limited to) left ulnar neuropathy at the elbow in addition to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The examiner should identify all of the Veteran’s left upper extremity disabilities, including any functional impairments. The phrase “functional impairment” is defined as “the inability of the body or a constituent part of it to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment.” Additionally, the Board notes that pain alone can qualify as a disability “where it diminishes the body’s ability to function, even where it is not diagnosed as connected to a current underlying condition.” For all disabilities and functional impairments identified, the examiner should state whether it is at least as like as not that the disability/functional impairment (1) had its onset in service; (2) is due to an injury or disease incurred in service; (3) is caused by a service-connected disability (including, but not limited to, left wrist ankylosis or residuals of left navicular bone fracture); and (4) is aggravated by a service-connected disability (including, but not limited to, left wrist ankylosis or residuals of left navicular bone fracture). In addressing these questions, the examiner should consider and address the medical articles provided by the Veteran, received by VA in April 2012. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tracie N. Wesner, Counsel