Citation Nr: 20023903 Decision Date: 04/07/20 Archive Date: 04/07/20 DOCKET NO. 19-28 270 DATE: April 7, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right arm chronic pain is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1980 to August 1983. Entitlement to service connection for right arm chronic pain is remanded. The Veteran contends that his right arm disability is related to his active service. Specifically, he indicated that, as an Aircraft Maintenance Mechanic, he refueled aircrafts constantly (he weighed only 150 pounds) and had to carry and drag hoses that hurt his arm. The Veteran was afforded VA examination in December 2018. He was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis and chronic right-lower arm pain. The Veteran reported that he started having right forearm and elbow pain in 1983 during active duty service. He indicated that he refueled aircrafts and had several medical evaluations for the pain. He stated that over the years the pain had worsened, and involves intermittent throbbing pain in the elbow, which radiates into the lower arm. The examiner determined that the Veteran’s current condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or illness. The examiner reasoned that, per available service treatment records (STRs), the Veteran had one medical evaluation for right forearm pain, and available post-service medical treatment records are silent for continued complaints of pain. Additionally, she indicated that current complaints of pain are not related to treatment of forearm pain during active duty. The Board finds that this VA examiner’s opinion is inadequate because it was based on an inaccurate factual premise. While the examiner is correct that there is only one service treatment record noting right forearm pain, the October 1981 treatment record actually noted a history of intermittent right forearm pain for years, which was deemed as exertional provocation. There was increased pain with pronation, supination, no swelling, no erythema, and tenderness over the extensor compartment of the proximal lateral forearm. The examiner indicated that post-service treatment records were silent for continued complaints of pain, but a December 2009 Social Security Administration documentation indicates that the Veteran complained of pain in the right arm, and the Veteran provided a statement that his arm got worse over time. He also contended that his doctors over the years have given him Vitamins A and D for vitamin deficiency in his right arm, and several other medications. Thus, the December 2018 VA examiner’s opinion appears to be based on at least partially inaccurate factual premises. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 458, 460-61 (1993) (medical opinion based on inaccurate factual premise may properly be rejected as non-probative). As such, the Board finds a new VA examination is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran an opportunity to identify any outstanding private and VA treatment records, not already associated with the claims file, relevant to his claimed disability. After obtaining necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained, to include records from his doctors who prescribed him medication for his right arm. 2. After obtaining any outstanding medical treatment records, schedule a new VA examination regarding the Veteran’s right arm disability. The examiner is asked to offer the following opinion: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s right arm disability began in service, or is otherwise the result of a disease or injury in service, to include his duties as an aircraft maintenance mechanic, his right forearm complaints and symptomatology noted in October 1981, or any other incident of service? The examiner is notified that the Veteran’s statements regarding his in-service duties and symptoms that started in service are credible. In offering any opinion, the examiner must consider the full record, to include the Veteran’s credible lay statements regarding the nature of his in-service duties, his in-service symptoms, and the continuity of symptomatology after service. The rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. (Continued on the next page)   3. Readjudicate the appeal. Shereen M. Marcus Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Warren 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.