Citation Nr: 20021363 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 17-67 081 DATE: March 25, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for peripheral nerve condition (or peripheral neuropathy) of the left arm is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran had a diagnosis of a peripheral nerve condition of the left arm at any point during the appeal period. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for peripheral nerve condition of the left arm have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty for numerous periods of time, to include from June 1958 to March 1962, from October 1962 to April 1963, and from September 1963 to February 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A videoconference hearing in connection with this appeal was requested by the Veteran in December 2017. See VA Form 9. Subsequently, the request was withdrawn by the Veteran in November 2019. See November 14, 2019 Third Party Correspondence. Entitlement to service connection for a peripheral nerve condition of the left arm is denied. The Veteran contends that he has a nerve condition in his left arm that is a residual resulting from an electric shock injury that occurred during the Veteran’s first period of active duty service. See February 20, 2020 Appellant’s Brief. The Veteran asserts that he has experienced significant symptoms in the days following the electric shock incident, that have continued to the present. See id. Direct service connection will be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, the three-element test for service connection requires: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In adjudicating the merits of such claims, reasonable doubt that exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence concerning any point will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. In this case, the Board finds that a review of the medical evidence of record fails to establish that the Veteran has been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy and/or a peripheral nerve condition of the left arm at any time during the appeal period. The Veteran was afforded a VA peripheral nerves examination in April 2015. The VA examiner indicated that the Veteran did have some symptoms attributable to a peripheral nerve condition, such as: intermittent pain on his left side; paresthesias and/or dysesthesias on his left side; tingling and tremors in both his left upper and lower extremity. However, the VA examiner did not formally diagnose the Veteran with a peripheral nerve condition or peripheral neuropathy of the left arm. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran had peripheral neuropathy or a peripheral nerve condition as a result of the electric shock he received in service. The VA examiner reasoned that the initial examination post-electric shock in 1961 did not reveal any nerve damage. Furthermore, the VA examiner noted that the Veteran did not complain of any symptoms of a peripheral nerve condition (i.e., paralysis, neuritis) on any of his subsequent military examinations. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran also had a normal neurological examination at age 62, and aside from “mild symmetric proximate weakness”, there was no evidence of peripheral neuropathy on the Veteran’s left side. There is no other medical evidence of record that indicates that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a peripheral nerve condition of the left arm. Examining the record, the Board notes that there are private treatment records referencing treatment for pain and stability issues on the Veteran’s left side. However, the private treatment provider did not diagnose the Veteran with any peripheral nerve conditions at this time. See September 2015 private treatment records. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran has a current disability. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). Without such evidence, service connection for peripheral neuropathy and/or a peripheral nerve condition of the left arm cannot be granted. See Shedden, 381 F.3d at 1167. Although the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s contentions regarding his experience after the electric shock he received during his active duty service, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a nerve condition of the left arm. Accordingly, the claim must be denied. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Maietta, 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.