Citation Nr: 20006806 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 18-10 800 DATE: January 28, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left arm condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1959 to August 1962. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2019. The transcript is of record. Entitlement to service connection for a left arm injury is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has arthritis in his left arm caused by a fall during service. The Veteran competently and credibly reported consistent left arm pain and numbness as well as diminished grip in his left hand. Lay evidence can be competent to establish a diagnosis when the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran is not, however, competent to diagnose arthritis. The Veteran provided no evidence of treatment for or a medical diagnosis of arthritis. The Board takes note of the recent Federal Circuit decision in Saunders v. Wilkie in which the Court found that where pain causes functional impairment, a disability for VA compensation purposes exists, even if there is no underlying diagnosis. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). At his November 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran provided competent and credible testimony that his arm pain impacts his ability to lift, carry and grip as necessary to care for his disabled adult son. Therefore, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that a current disability exists. The Veteran credibly testified to injuring his arm in service when he fell on ice. However, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) confirm a fall on ice resulting in an injury to the right arm, not the left. The Veteran’s STRs reveal the Veteran injured his left hand in June 1962 when it was slammed in a car door. Because the evidence indicates that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with an established in-service event, injury, or disease, a medical examiner must comment on any etiological relationship between the in-service incident and the Veteran’s left arm pain, numbness and diminished grip strength. McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4). The Veteran should also be given the opportunity to submit additional evidence from private medical providers. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated his left arm condition. The Veteran should be requested to sign any necessary authorization for release of medical records to VA, and appropriate steps should be made to obtain any identified records. 2. Thereafter, the Veteran should be provided with a VA examination in connection with his service connection claim for a left arm condition. The entire claims file, including a copy of this remand, should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner, and it should be confirmed that such records were available for review. Any indicated tests and studies must be accomplished, and all clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The Veteran is competent to attest to matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including events that occurred during service and observable symptoms. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. First, the examiner must identify all currently diagnosed left arm conditions including but not limited to arthritis and neuropathy. For each identified disorder, the examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such disorder manifested during service or is otherwise related to service. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Sherman Associate 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.