Citation Nr: 18155499
Decision Date: 12/04/18	Archive Date: 12/04/18

DOCKET NO. 12-06 194
DATE:	December 4, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
The Veteran’s left wrist condition had its onset during service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for left wrist condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1157 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1979 to May 1986.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2011 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington. Jurisdiction over the appeal has since been transferred to the RO in Cleveland, Ohio.
 The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in June 2017. The Board remanded this matter in November 2017 for additional development.  
1. Left Wrist Condition
The Board finds that service connection for left wrist condition is warranted.  Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability).  See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 
 In this case, the evidence shows that the Veteran has had a left wrist condition throughout the appeal period. See August 2016 VA Examination Report.
The evidence also indicates that the Veteran’s condition began during service. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that his left wrist began hurting in August 1979 and continued irritating him. See Hearing Transcript p. 4-5. Furthermore, the Veteran continued to complain of pain in his left wrist after leaving service. In September 2008, a nurse practitioner at VAMC in Cincinnati, Ohio noted the tenderness with flexion in the Veteran’s left wrist. See September 2008 Primary Care Nurse Practitioner Note. 
The Veteran’s testimony is corroborated by a 2010 Progress Note from Dr. PF that noted the Veteran “has painful left wrist due to post-traumatic arthritis” and that “[s]ymptoms have been present for years.” Additionally, 2011 medical opinion from Dr. PF stated that the Veteran probably had a long-standing injury that caused a scapholunate ligament tear. See May 2011 Orthopedic Surgery Note. Each of these pieces of evidence tends to show that the Veteran did suffer an injury to his left wrist in service, as he claimed.  
The Board acknowledges a December 2017 VA examination that stated that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s condition was related to service. However, the Board finds that, considering the Veteran’s competent testimony and medical notes from Dr. PF, the evidence is in relative equipoise.
Accordingly, the Board concludes that the evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran’s left wrist condition had its onset and has continued since service. As the reasonable doubt created by this relative equipoise in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 
STEVEN D. REISS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	L. Gillespie, Law Clerk