Citation Nr: 18149036 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 17-41 819 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER As new and material evidence has been received, the application to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition is granted. As new and material evidence has been received, the application to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a right wrist condition is granted. Service connection for a left wrist condition is denied. Service connection for a right wrist condition is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a final decision issued in January 2014, the regional office (RO) denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition. 2. In a final decision issued in January 2014, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a right wrist condition. 3. Evidence added to the record since the final January 2014 rating decision for both claims is not cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the prior decisions and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for a left wrist and a right wrist conditions. 4. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of a left wrist condition. 5. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of a right wrist condition. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The January 2014 rating decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104; 20.302, 20.1103. 2. The January 2014 rating decision that denied entitlement to service connection for a right wrist condition is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104; 20.302, 20.1103. 3. As additional evidence received since the January 2014 denial is new and material, the criteria for reopening the claim for service connection for a left wrist condition have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 4. As additional evidence received since the January 2014 denial is new and material, the criteria for reopening the claim for service connection for a right wrist condition have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 5. The criteria for service connection for a left wrist condition. have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 6. The criteria for service connection for a right wrist condition. have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 18 to December 7, 2000; February 2003 to April 2004; and November 2004 to April 2009. The issues are on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision. Whether new and material evidence has been received in order to reopen claims of entitlement to service connection for a left wrist and a right wrist condition The Veteran originally filed a claims for service connection for a left wrist and a right wrist condition in January 2013. That claim was ultimately denied in January 2014 because there was no diagnosis and no etiological nexus between the Veteran’s wrist pains and an in-service incident or injury. This decision was not appealed and it became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104. The Veteran sought to reopen her service connection claims in March 2015. The RO denied the claims for a left and a right wrist condition because there was no new and material evidence to reopen her claims. The Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement in April 2016, and in a July 2017 statement of the case, the RO acknowledged new and material evidence in the form of VA treatment records that showed the Veteran was undergoing new treatments, but continued to deny the Veteran’s claims of entitlement for service connection for a left and a right wrist condition because there was no diagnosis; no in-service injury, event, or incident; and no nexus. Regardless of the RO’s actions, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) has a legal duty under 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7104 to address the question of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claims for service connection. This matter goes to the Board’s jurisdiction to reach the underlying claims and adjudicate the claims on a de novo basis. See Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1996). New evidence is defined as existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence previously of record, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The determination of whether newly submitted evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim should be considered a component of the question of what is new and material evidence, rather than a separate determination to be made after the Board has found that evidence is new and material. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). The provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5108 require a review of all evidence submitted by or on behalf of a claimant since the last final denial on any basis to determine whether a claim must be reopened. See Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 282-83 (1996). Here, the last final denial of the claims is the January 2014 rating decision. Furthermore, for purposes of the “new and material” analysis, the credibility of the evidence is presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 512-13 (1992). Evidence received since the January 2014 rating decision are Fayetteville VA Medical Center treatment records from January 2014 to July 2017, which showed that the Veteran was undergoing treatment for her bilateral wrist pain. Treatment included physical therapy and wrist braces. The new evidence is sufficient to reopen the Veteran’s service connection claims. With the reopening of the claims, the Board proceeds with adjudication the claims on its merits. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connections for a left wrist and a right wrist condition. The Veteran contends that she has a left wrist and a right wrist condition due to her military occupation specialty duties that required her to prepare paperwork dealing with records and reports. In her VA treatment records, she reports that she believes she has bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any wrist disability. The Veteran’s VA treatment medical records showed that the Veteran experienced bilateral wrist pain, and was undergoing treatment for this pain. The Veteran was consistently diagnosed with left wrist or right wrist pain. The Board notes that x-rays conducted in March 2015 and November 2015 MRIs of the left wrist showed normal results. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). For the purposes of establishing a current disability, pain alone, without any functional impairment or underlying diagnosis, is not a service connectable disability. Sanchez-Benitez v. West, 13 Vet. App. 282, 285 (1999), vacated in part, dismissed in part, Sanchez-Benitez v. Principi, 259 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Although VA treatment records indicate the Veteran has been treated for left wrist and right wrist pains, pain alone is not a service connectable disability. The Board notes that the Veteran’s VA treatment records indicate that her bilateral wrist pain may cause some functional impairment. In her substantive appeal, the Veteran reported that she had problems lifting items and required assistance to help out with her newborn child. However, none of the Veteran’s physicians have opined that her current functional impairments of the bilateral wrists are due to her active duty service and there is no medical evidence etiologically linking the Veteran’s current pain with functional impairment to her active duty service. The Board notes that while lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, the issue of whether a left wrist or a right wrist condition is related to service falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (lay persons not competent to diagnose cancer). As such, the Board accords significantly more weight to the medical evidence than to the Veteran’s lay assertions and finds that the most probative evidence weighs against the claims of entitlement to service connection. Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that the weight of the evidence is against a finding of a current left wrist or right wrist disability. Thus, there is no basis on which the claim for service connection may be granted. Brammer, 3 Vet. App. At 225. It is therefore unnecessary to address any other element of service connection. Accordingly, the claims for service connection for a left wrist and a right wrist condition are denied. Further, although there is evidence the Veteran has pain with functional impairment of her bilateral wrists, they are not etiologically linked to active duty service, and the claims must be denied. The elements for service connection for a left wrist and a right wrist condition have not been met. Accordingly, service connection for the claimed disabilities are not warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against these claims, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Department of Veterans Affairs