Citation Nr: 20006654
Decision Date: 01/28/20	Archive Date: 01/27/20

DOCKET NO. 10-42 418
DATE: January 28, 2020

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had honorable active service in the United States Navy from May 2006 to July 2008. 

This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2009 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia, which denied entitlement to the benefits sought.  

Entitlement to Service Connection for Carpel Tunnel Syndrome

The appeal was remanded for a VA medical opinion in March 2018. In an August 2019 medical opinion, a VA examiner found that it was less likely than not that the Veteran had carpal tunnel syndrome related to service because there was no evidence of a carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis beyond the Veteran’s claims that she had the disorder.

However, an April 2010 VA examination report includes a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. As the medical opinion is based upon incorrect findings, a new VA examination is in order. Further, in the March 2018 Board remand, it was noted that a physical examination may not be necessary, however, as there is now a difference in opinion as to whether the Veteran has a carpal tunnel syndrome disorder, a physical examination is necessary.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of any bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome found on examination. The examiner should review the claims file to include the findings of the April 2010 and August 2019 VA examiners and note that review in the report. The examiner should ensure that all indicated tests and studies are conducted. 

The examiner should provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least 50 percent probable) that the Veteran’s current bilateral CTS disorder originated during service or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s service. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all conclusions.

The examiner is asked to comment on, and if possible, reconcile, the conflicting findings of the April 2010 and August 2019 examiners.

(Continued on the next page)

 

2. Then readjudicate the claim remaining on appeal. If any of the benefits sought are not granted in full, furnish the Veteran and her representative with a supplemental statement of the case and an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board.

 

 

KELLI A. KORDICH

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	G. Slovick, Counsel

The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.