Citation Nr: 18146566 Decision Date: 11/01/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 16-32 528 DATE: November 1, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left ring finger disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1992 to December 1995. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision issued by the Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). By way of background, the Veteran initially filed a claim for service connection for multiple disorders, including a left ring finger disability, headaches and right hand numbness. The claims were denied in a September 2014 rating decision, and in March 2015, the RO received the Veteran’s Notice of Disagreement for the denials of service connection for headaches, right hand numbness and a left ring finger disability. In May and June of 2016, the RO granted service connection for right hand numbness and headaches, respectively. In May 2016, the RO issued a statement of the case, still denying service connection for a left finger disability. The Veteran filed a substantive appeal in July 2016 clarifying that he is only appealing the issue of service connection for his left ring finger disability. The appeal was certified to the Board in August 2016. Since the RO has already granted service connection for headaches and right hand numbness, the only issue before the Board is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for a left ring finger disability. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105 (2012). Entitlement to service connection for a left ring finger disability is remanded. In the Veteran’s Notice of Disagreement received by the RO on March 2015, the Veteran asserted that he injured his left ring finger during active duty in 1994 while working for the 127th ASB Hanau Germany Fliegerhorst Concern. He stated he injured his finger when he removed a starter from a Humvee, and the starter fell on his finger. He stated that he was taken to a hospital in Hanau, Germany, and was treated for his finger injury. He named three soldiers that witnessed the event. He claims that he has residuals from the left finger injury and experiences pain due to his in-service injury. However, there are no in-service hospitalization records associated in the claims file. An in-service September 1995 medical report shows that the Veteran complained of back pain due to a Humvee incident that occurred in August 1994. In March 2015, the RO received a statement certified by one of the named soldiers who was assigned to his unit, the Bravo Company 127th Aviation Support Battalion, during that time; he recalled the Veteran injuring his finger while working on a vehicle. The Veteran has not been afforded with a VA examination for his alleged finger disability. The Veteran asserts that he experiences constant pain in his left ring finger and that the pain is related to his in-service injury. As the Veteran has complained of pain in his left finger, provided lay statements of an incident during service, and an in-service record reflects an injury due to a Humvee accident, the Board finds that the low threshold of McLendon has been met and the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his left ring finger complaints. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appropriate record repositories and request that a search be made for records, including hospitalization records, pertaining to the alleged Humvee incident and hospitalization at Hanau, Germany, in August of 1994 while the Veteran was working for the 127th Fliegerhorst Concern and/or the Bravo Company 127th Aviation Support Battalion. Any additional action necessary, to include follow-up action requested by any contacted entity, should be accomplished. If the search for such records leads to negative results, notify the Veteran and his representative of this result. Associate any records or negative responses with the claims file. 2. Provide the Veteran another opportunity to identify any pertinent treatment records, VA or private, with respect to his left ring finger complaints. The RO/AMC should secure any necessary authorizations. If any requested outstanding records cannot be obtained, the Veteran should be notified of such. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination. The Veteran’s claims file, including this remand, should be made available for review by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examiner should review the claims folder and this fact should be noted in the accompanying medical report. (a) After conducting an examination of the Veteran and performing any clinically-indicated diagnostic testing, the examiner should address whether the Veteran exhibits a left ring finger disability. If a diagnosis cannot be advanced, the examiner should address whether the Veteran’s pain in the left ring finger causes any functional impairment or loss, and if so, to what extent the pain limits the Veteran’s use of his left ring finger. (b) If any left finger disability or left finger functional impairment is diagnosed, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s left finger disability or left finger functional impairment had its onset in service or is related to military service, including the Humvee incident in August 1994. In so opining the examiner should address the lay and medical evidence of record, including a September 2014 witness statement received in March 2015. A detailed rationale for the opinion must be provided. If the examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the examiner offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. The examiner is reminded that the term “as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility,” but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner’s expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as against it. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Lee, Associate Counsel