Citation Nr: 20021457 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 17-46 166 DATE: March 25, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a testicle disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a left middle finger injury is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s testicle disability had its onset during his active service. 2. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for a left middle finger injury, or residuals from a left middle finger injury, that occurred during his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a testicle disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). 2. The criteria for service connection for a left middle finger injury are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.30, 3.309 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) from June 1980 to June 1984. This case comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) from an August 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. At the outset, the Board notes that the RO was notified of outstanding service treatment records (STRs) that were pertinent to the Veteran’s claims within a year of the August 2013 rating decision. As such, the August 2013 rating decision did not become final and the claims before the Board have been recharacterized accordingly. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) (2019). 1. Bilateral testicle disability The Veteran asserts that his current testicle injury is related to active service. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that his testicle injury occurred while running during a physical training session, and that his injury has resulted in a continuous residual disability. STRs indicate consistent complaint of and treatment for his claimed testicle injury. In August 1982, the Veteran was diagnosed with orchitis after complaining of testicular pain and swelling. In December 1982, the Veteran was diagnosed with epididymitis of the right testicle, after complaining of ongoing testicular pain. In January 1983, the Veteran was seen at a urology clinic for symptoms associated with his epididymitis. Based on these facts, the Board concedes that an in-service event occurred. The Veteran’s post-service treatment records reflect that he received medical care for the same symptoms of testicular injury that he was treated for during active service. In May 2012, a VA physician assessed that the Veteran had a long history of bilateral orchalgia, possible epididymitis of the right testicle, and referred him to a urologist for evaluation of a left intratesticular cyst. In May 2013, the Veteran contacted the VA Medical Center with complaints of intermittent testicle pain. In October 2013, the Veteran’s treating VA physician assistant diagnosed him with epididymitis, which was verified by an ultrasound, and indicated that his benign prostatic hypertrophy was not alleviated by medication. In March 2015, the Veteran was assessed as having chronic left testicular pain. In light of the foregoing medical evidence, the Board concedes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis. In an October 2013 VA Medical Center intake screening note, the Veteran stated that his chronic groin pain was becoming more severe. The Veteran was initially afforded a VA examination in August 2013. The Veteran was indicated as being diagnosed with prostate hypertrophy and bilateral orchalgia. The VA examiner also noted that the Veteran had a history of chronic epididymitis. However, the VA examiner ultimately opined that the Veteran’s claimed disability was not related to his active service because his December 2011 ultrasound had no abnormal findings. The Veteran was afforded another VA examination in August 2014, after all missing STRs were associated with the record. The VA examiner concluded that the Veteran’s claimed disability was likely not incurred in or caused by active service because his STRs reflected an episode of acute epididymitis rather than a trauma and his 1984 separation exam reflected normal testicles. As such, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s testicle injury had resolved. The Board finds that both VA medical opinions of record are inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the examiner failed to note the multiple times that the Veteran was treated for epididymitis, as well as other testicular disorders, both during and after service. In addition, the examiner did not consider the Veteran’s lay statements of continuous pain, swelling, and in-service injury. As the opinions are inadequate, they cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. In a June 2014 statement, the Veteran’s wife stated that the Veteran has continuous testicular pain and that his home remedies (i.e. ice, heat, and massage) and medications did not alleviate his pain. The Board finds that the Veteran and his wife are competent to identify the Veteran’s testicular pain and associated symptoms related to his diagnosis since active service. Moreover, their statements have been found to be credible. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1331, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Additionally, in a June 2015 statement, the Veteran’s treating VA physician assistant stated that his medical diagnosis of testicular pain was related to active service. In sum, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained a testicle injury during active service, and that he has a current diagnosis as a result of that testicle injury. Additionally, the Veteran has competently and credibly reported symptoms from his testicle injury since his active service. Further, the Veteran’s current treatment provider has indicated that his current disability had its onset during the Veteran’s active service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is for the claim and entitlement to service connection for a testicle disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 2. Left middle finger disability The Veteran asserts that he injured his left middle finger playing basketball during active service and that the finger never completely healed, resulting in a slight deformity and an inability to form a complete fist. A review of the Veteran’s STRs and post-service VA treatment records associated with the claims file reveal no evidence of a left middle finger injury, or residuals of a left middle finger injury or disability. Notably, in an August 2014 VA medical opinion, the VA physician indicated that the Veteran had no condition of the left middle finger. To the extent that the Veteran alleges his left middle finger injury, or residuals from such an injury, those allegations are not supported by the evidence of record. Further, there is no indication that the Veteran has pain that causes functional impairment so as to constitute a current disability pursuant to Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For a disability to be service-connected, it must be present at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during or contemporary to the pendency of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). In this case, there is no indication that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a left middle finger disability, or that he has left middle finger pain that causes functional impairment. Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service-connected benefits to cases where there is a current disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for a left middle finger disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Byrd, 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.