Citation Nr: 19104147 Decision Date: 01/17/19 Archive Date: 01/16/19 DOCKET NO. 12-03 068 DATE: January 17, 2019 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 0 percent for decreased range of motion in the fingers of the right hand, residuals of right hand injury (hereinafter right-hand disability) from April 7, 2003, to March 24, 2016, and an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a right-hand disability from March 25, 2016, to present is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Army from January 1951 to January 1953. The Veteran was awarded the Korean Service Medal with a Bronze Service Star and the United Nations Service Medal. This matter is before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) from the November 2009 and May 2017 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. The Board notes that there have already been three remands for the same right-hand disability. These took place in July 2007 and June 2009 for further development, and, in an October 2017 decision remanding the Veteran’s right-hand disability regarding whether the Veteran’s diagnosed scapholunate advanced collapse (a progressive form of arthritis of the wrist) and severe basal thumb arthritis, degenerative arthritis of the radiocarpal joint, and mild radial sensory neuropathy was related to his right-hand disability. A November 2018 rating decision awarded service connection for the right wrist degenerative joint disease and radial sensory neuropathy of the right upper extremity both as secondary to the right-hand disability of the Veteran. The claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 0 percent for a right-hand disability from April 7, 2003, to March 24, 2016, and an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a right-hand disability from March 25, 2016, to present is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation higher than 0 percent from the period of April 7, 2003, to March 24, 2016, and an evaluation higher than 10 percent from the period of March 25, 2016, to present. The Veteran specifically indicated that the award should be much higher for his decreased range of motion in the fingers of his right-hand. He also indicated that this condition negatively affected his life much more than 0 percent. The Board notes that a determination has already been made in this case that the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) are missing and the Veteran has been apprised of the unavailability of his records. When service records are unavailable through no fault of the Veteran, VA has a heightened duty to assist, as well as an obligation to explain its findings and conclusions and carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369-70 (2005). The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his right-hand disability in March 2018, which indicated an abnormal range of motion (ROM) and a gap between the hand and thumb when the Veteran closed his hand. Also noted was a functional loss as indicated by an inability of the Veteran to close his hand, to grasp objects, with pain on movement for all fingers, and with the use of his hand. The VA examiner noted that there was less movement than normal due to ankylosis, adhesions, etc., however, no ankylosis was documented in the right hand. However, in December 2018, the Veteran’s representative in their Appellate Brief, indicated that the Veteran’s right-hand disability worsened since the VA examination of March 2018 stating, “[v]eteran has since experienced decreased range of motion and hand pain. Veteran now has greater hand pain and stiffness.” Although further delay is regrettable, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in this case to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103(A) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2018). Considering the allegations of the progression of the Veteran’s symptoms, as alleged in the Appellate Brief by the Veteran’s representative, a new VA examination is warranted on remand. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding and ongoing VA treatment records. If any requested records are unavailable, or the search for records otherwise yields negative results, that fact should clearly be documented in the record and the Veteran so notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e) (2018). Specifically, any records regarding the right hand, its functional limitations, ROM measurements, ankylosis, and pain on repetitive motion since the last VA examination in 2018. 2. Obtain a new VA medical examination to assess the current level of severity of the Veteran’s right-hand disability, specifically the decreased range of motion in the fingers of the right hand, residuals of right hand injury. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished. All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner must review the claims file and copy of this remand, and indicate as such. A complete rationale for any and all opinions expressed must be provided. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinions, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to the particular questions presented. (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE) 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should review the record, perform any necessary development, and readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the appeal is denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate SSOC, afford the Veteran an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C.A. Teich, Associate Counsel