Citation Nr: 20031086 Decision Date: 05/04/20 Archive Date: 05/04/20 DOCKET NO. 16-29 009 DATE: May 4, 2020 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the appeal to reopen the claim for service connection for a left wrist condition is granted. Service connection for residuals of a left wrist injury is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right foot condition is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. New and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the Veteran’s left wrist condition claim. 2. The Veteran’s left wrist condition had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.125 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1981 to June 1988 and his decorations include the Combat Infantryman Badge and Parachutist Badge. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in January 2020. 1. New and material evidence having been received, the appeal to reopen the claim for service connection for a left wrist condition. The Veteran previously submitted a claim of entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition, which was originally denied in a December 1988 rating decision on the basis that the Veteran’s records did not show evidence of any in service complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of the claimed disability. In June 2007, the Veteran submitted a claim to reopen entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition but was denied due to a lack of new and material evidence. The June 2007 rating decision became final because the Veteran did not submit a Notice of Disagreement or new evidence in connection with the claims within the appeal period. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). In connection with his claim to reopen, additional medical records and lay statements have been associated with the file purporting to show the Veteran’s disabilities are related service. Thus, the Board finds that new and material evidence has been received sufficient to reopen the Veteran’s previously denied claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a); Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117-18 (2010); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition. In cases where a Veteran asserts service connection for injuries or disease incurred or aggravated in combat, 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) and its implementing regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d), are applicable. This statute and regulation ease the evidentiary burden of a combat Veteran by permitting the use, under certain circumstances, of lay evidence. If the Veteran was engaged in combat with the enemy, VA shall accept as sufficient proof of service connection satisfactory lay or other evidence of service incurrence, if the lay or other evidence is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has held that in the case of a combat Veteran not only is the combat injury presumed, but so is the disability due to the in-service combat injury. Reeves v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 988, 998-99 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To establish service connection, however, there must be the evidence of a current disability and a causal relationship between the current disability and the combat injury. Id. (citing Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board finds that service connection for a left wrist condition is warranted. Service records show that the Veteran has received a Combat Infantryman Badge and sustaining trauma and injuries to his left wrist is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, and hardships of that service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b). As such, VA must presume the occurrence of the in-service injury. In addition, the medical evidence shows that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a left wrist sprain and he reports the onset of the condition during combat service. See VA Examination, August 2015. The Board acknowledges that a left wrist condition was noted on his service entrance examination. A pre-existing injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active military, naval, or air service where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progression of the disease. 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(a). However, during the January 2020 hearing, the Veteran competently and credibly testified that his left wrist condition was aggravated during whiles serving in combat as well as during his service while carrying equipment, conducting parachute landings, and during a vehicle accident at Fort Braggs. He stated that he did not report his injuries because “that’s what we did when we were in Recon.” The Board finds the Veteran competent to report his symptoms during and since serving in combat, including a worsening during and since such service, and that his account of having a left wrist condition is credible. Thus, the Board finds that the evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that his left wrist condition is related to left wrist trauma during his combat service. See Reeves, 682 F.3d at 998-99. In light of his in-service, combat-related left wrist trauma, the credible history of a left wrist condition aggravated in and since service, and the diagnosis of a left wrist sprain, the Board finds that service connection for a left wrist condition is warranted because the disability had its onset in service. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot condition is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his right foot condition had its onset during combat service. During the January 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that he began having pain throughout his right foot during combat, and since that time he has undergone surgeries and now has trouble wearing shoes and walking due to pain. The Board notes that the Veteran is service connected for a right heel condition after being diagnosed with a right heel fracture. However, the Veteran testified that his right foot condition, which results in functional impairment, is more extensive than just his right heel. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As the Board finds the Veteran both competent and credible to report his in-service right foot combat injury and its continued symptoms, a remand is necessary to determine any right foot disabilities the Veteran may have other than his right heel fracture. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Notify the Veteran that he may submit lay statements from himself and from other individuals who have first-hand knowledge, and/or were contemporaneously informed of the onset and continuation of symptoms of his right foot condition. The Veteran should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this lay evidence. 3. Schedule an examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc. if an in-person examination is not feasible) for the Veteran’s right foot condition. Any tests or studies deemed necessary should be conducted and the results should be reported. Following a review of all the lay and medical evidence, the examiner should determine any diagnoses other than a right heel fracture and provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s right foot condition had its onset during service or within one year of service or are otherwise related to service. In responding to this inquiry, the examiner must assume as true that the Veteran sustained an injury to his right foot during service and has had recurrent right foot problems since that time. The examiner should also determine if the Veteran’s right foot condition is secondary to his service-connected leg disabilities or his service-connected right heel disability. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Leigh, Attorney Advisor 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.