Citation Nr: 20043376
Decision Date: 06/26/20	Archive Date: 06/26/20

DOCKET NO. 16-49 907
DATE: June 26, 2020

ORDER

Service connection for a right hand disorder is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran had active service from February 2000 to November 2001.

2. A right hand disorder has not been shown.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

A right hand disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.655(b) (2019).

REASON AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

In order to warrant service connection, there must be the existence of a current disorder. A review of the clinical records fails to reflect a current diagnosis. Specifically, on no occasion was a right hand disorder diagnosed and no symptoms of a right hand disorder have been identified. Clinical records consistently reflect that the Veteran’s extremities were normal and there was no joint or muscle pain. 

While the service treatment records (STRs) indicate that the Veteran was seen with complaints of right hand problems in October 2001 and he filed a claim for a swollen right hand in 2014, the post-service clinical records are absent of complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of a right hand disorder. 

In November 2018, the Board remanded the issue in order to schedule an examination but the Veteran failed to report. Therefore, the Board has decided the issue based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). Without evidence of a current disorder, the appeal is denied. 

Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). 

 

L. HOWELL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. Grzeczkowicz 

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.