Citation Nr: 20021311 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 18-35 573 DATE: March 25, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right hand injury is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s right hand condition arose during or as a result of his in-service accident. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right hand injury have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from April 1973 to April 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2018 rating decision of a VA Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for right hand injury The Veteran asserts that his current right-hand condition arose during or as a result of his active service, particularly due to a workplace accident in March 1977. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, service connection requires (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a causal relationship (nexus) between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain diseases are considered chronic and therefore will be presumed to have been incurred in service if manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) reflect the Veteran suffering an injury to his right hand in March 1977. The STRs reflect that the Veteran suffered a laceration with pain, swelling, and subsequent infection to his right hand. However, in the Veteran’s March 1977 medical examination prior to separation from service, the Veteran did not report any complaints regarding his right hand. During the Veteran’s January 2018 VA examination for hand and finger conditions, the examiner found it less likely than not that the Veteran’s condition arose during or as a result of his active service. Unfortunately, the examiner’s rationale is muddled, brief, and appears to be focused on the fact that the Veteran’s right hand did not sustain an injury during an in-service motor vehicle accident (MVA). Accordingly, the Board can only afford the VA examination report some probative weight. In an April 2018 medical opinion, a private physician stated that he had treated the Veteran for several years, had prescribed medication for the previous 2 years for his arthritic pain in his right hands, and that the Veteran had reported this pain stemmed from injuries sustained during service. Specifically, the Veteran stated that his hand was mashed between a truck tire and a tire cage during service. Consequently, the physician opined that the Veteran’s current right hand condition was at least as likely as not due to his in-service injury. There is conflicting evidence in this case. While the Veteran’s right-hand injury is documented in his STRs, his discharge examination and Report of Medical History are negative for right hand complaints. Additionally, the January 2018 VA examination report’s etiology opinion is negative; however, the rationale is not thorough enough to warrant being given significant probative weight. Similarly, the April 2018 private physician’s etiology opinion is positive, but it is primarily based on the Veteran’s own reports. The other positive evidence of record consists of the Veteran’s own lay statements. The Boards finds that the positive and negative evidence in this case is roughly in equipoise. Accordingly, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is triggered in this case, and the Veteran’s claim for service connection is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Hicks, 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.