Citation Nr: 18106961 Decision Date: 06/01/18 Archive Date: 05/31/18 DOCKET NO. 15-12 203 DATE: June 1, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome is related to in-service nerve damage. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 2008 to June 2011. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge during a March 2017 Travel Board hearing. The transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome The Veteran contends that he began to experience tingling and numbness in his hands during his deployment to Iraq and that he was diagnosed with ulnar tunnel syndrome by an orthopedic surgeon while deployed. After a review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome that is related to nerve damage sustained while working as a machine gunner in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). April 2017 private treatment records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome, and the private physician opined that the Veteran’s bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome more likely than not began during active service. The provider noted a December 2013 electromyography (EMG) study that revealed ulnar neuropathy at the elbows bilaterally. The rationale was that the Veteran worked as a machine gun operator in service and this work hurt his elbows, causing nerve damage bilaterally. At the outset, the Board finds the private opinion to be adequate for appellate review. There is no evidence that the private provider was not competent or credible, and as the opinion are based on the Veteran’s statements, in-person examination and the examiner’s observations, the Board finds it is entitled to significant probative weight with respect to the Veteran’s bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome at the time of the examination. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302–05 (2008). The Board also notes that the Veteran has submitted multiple lay statements that attest to his development of numbness in his hands during service, including a statement from his first-line supervisor. The service member confirmed the Veteran’s reports of increasing numbness and problems with his hands in service, and that the Veteran was transferred to a different duty assignment due to the problems with his hands. He also confirmed that he personally sent the Veteran for medical treatment after witnessing the Veteran’s symptoms and saw a diagnosis slip finding nerve damage that the Veteran received from an orthopedic surgeon. He also confirmed that the Veteran continued to report numbness after service. The Board finds that the service member is competent to report the events that he witnessed and finds his statement highly probative. The Board notes that a VA examination was provided in December 2014, but finds that examination to be inadequate for rating purposes. The examiner stated that there was no objective evidence to support the claimed condition of bilateral ulnar neuropathy. The Board notes, however, that later in the same report, the examiner noted the Veteran’s prior abnormal EMG and then stated that “bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome could be considered.” The Board finds this statement to be inconsistent with the finding that there was no evidence of ulnar tunnel syndrome. As the report is internally inconsistent regarding whether the Veteran has a current disability of ulnar tunnel syndrome, it is inadequate for rating purposes and the Board accords it little to no probative weight. The Board therefore finds that the competent evidence of record indicates that the Veteran has bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome caused by nerve injury to his elbows during service. As the December 2014 VA examination has been found to be inadequate, the only competent medical opinion of record providing an analysis of the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome is the April 2017 private opinion. As discussed above, the opinion found that the Veteran had bilateral ulnar tunnel syndrome that was more likely than not related to nerve damage during service. The opinion stands uncontradicted by any other competent evidence of record. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) The Board therefore finds that the competent medical evidence of record indicates that the Veteran’s bilateral ulnar nerve syndrome was caused by service and therefore, service connection is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2017). E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Arnold, Associate Counsel