Citation Nr: 20059960 Decision Date: 09/11/20 Archive Date: 09/11/20 DOCKET NO. 15-42 979 DATE: September 11, 2020 ORDER Service connection for a left wrist condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s left wrist condition is due to his in-service baseball injury. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left wrist condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1964 to June 1967. VA received the Veteran’s service connection claim for a left wrist condition on June 7, 2012. A subsequent June 2013 rating decision denied the Veteran’s claim. The Veteran disagreed with that decision and this appeal ensued. This appeal was previously before the Board in December 2019. The Board remanded the claim so that the Veteran could be afforded a VA examination for his left wrist condition. The Board found that the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) showed treatment for a left ulnar collateral ligament with the use of a cast on his left wrist. The Board also noted that the Veteran and his spouse provided written statements, which described constant wrist pain and decreased mobility since he injured his left wrist during service. See Veteran’s and Spouse’s June 2014 Written Correspondence. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2019 and his STRs and statements describing post-service wrist pain were addressed in the etiology opinion. An addendum opinion was also provided in March 2020. As such, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the December 2019 Board remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Service connection for a left wrist condition is denied. The Veteran asserts that his current left wrist condition is a result of a fracture he sustained during his active duty service, while playing in a baseball game. The Veteran and his wife provided written statements in June 2014. The Veteran reported that he fractured his left wrist during an in-service baseball game. He reported that he worked as a clerk of an orthopedic surgeon, who reportedly examined him and reportedly diagnosed with a left wrist fracture. He also reported that the orthopedic surgeon treated him with soft casts and cortisone injections. He did not know why the orthopedic surgeon did not take official notes or create an official record. The Veteran’s spouse reported that he had experienced pain in his left wrist since the accident was incurred during his active duty service. She reportedly met him approximately two years after he separated from service. While the Veteran maintains that his left wrist was fractured, the service treatment records (STRs) tell a slightly different story. The STRs confirm a left wrist injury, but do not show that the wrist was actually fractured, as multiple x-rays showed a normal wrist. The Veteran’s confusion is understandable as his wrist was immobilized for 10 days in a cast. However, a June 1966 x-ray of his left wrist showed normal results. Id. The Veteran’s STRs show that he had a strain of the left ulnar collateral ligament. Additionally, while the Veteran maintains that he has had wrist problems since that time, the fact remains that the Veteran’s separation physical was normal, and the Veteran specifically denied any arthritis or joint problems on a medical history survey completed in conjunction with his separation physical. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2019. The examiner noted that the Veteran was diagnosed with a chronic left wrist sprain, left wrist degenerative arthritis, and chondrocalcinosis of the left wrist. The examiner provided a conflicting nexus opinion. The examiner reported that the Veteran’s left wrist condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury; however, the examiner concluded their rationale with, there is sufficient evidence to support that the Veteran’s left wrist arthritis was caused by service. An addendum opinion was sought to clarify the conflicting opinion. The same examiner provided an addendum opinion in March 2020. The examiner provided a negative nexus opinion. The examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s STRs, which showed treatment for a left wrist injury, but also reported that the STRs were unremarkable for a left wrist fracture. The examiner described the anatomy of the wrist and explained that arthritis can occur many years after an initial injury to the bones or ligaments. However, based on a review of the Veteran’s STRs, reports of injuries during service, and reported ongoing residual pain, there was no evidence to support that the Veteran’s left wrist condition was incurred in or was otherwise caused by his service. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertion that he believes his left wrist condition is due to the injury he sustained while playing baseball in the summer of 1966. The Board also recognizes that the Veteran and his wife assert that he has felt pain in his left wrist since the injury he sustained during his active duty service. However, the competent and credible evidence of record does not support his assertions. The Veteran has received a VA examination regarding his left wrist condition. However, the opinion that was provided was negative. The examiner took into account the Veteran’s STRs, his statement as to how he injured his left wrist, and his post-service complaints of wrist pain. The Board also recognizes the Veteran’s assertion that he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as it pertains to his left wrist fracture. He believes that he sustained a wrist fracture in 1966; however, as previously stated, the medical evidence of record suggests that the left wrist was not actually fractured, but rather was sprained. The Veteran has also asserted his private medical treatment was not considered. The Board has reviewed his lay statements from the June 2014 correspondence and concludes that his statements do not warrant the grant of service connection for a left wrist condition. The Veteran did report the in-service injury and stated that he has experienced pain in his left wrist ever since. However, there is no contemporaneous medical evidence to support his assertion of continuity of symptomatology, and the Veteran specifically denied problems on his medical history survey completed in conjunction with his separation physical. Here, it appears that he first received treatment for his left wrist in 2002, decades after separation from service. His authorization and consent forms to release information to VA indicated that he received treatment for his left wrist from 2002-2012 from one physician and from 2004-2008 from a different physician. See VA 21-4142 forms dated June 4, 2012. As such, it appears he first sought treatment for his left wrist about thirty years after his separation from the military. Further, the March 2020 VA examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s reports of an in-service injury and post-service symptoms, yet a negative nexus opinion was still provided. To the extent that he believes that his left wrist condition is a result of his in-service baseball injury, such a medical opinion requires medical expertise, and that determination cannot simply be made by lay observation alone; and the Veteran is not considered competent (meaning medically qualified by training or experience) to provide a medical opinion. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, given the Veteran’s assertions of an in-service injury and complaints of post-service pain, a VA examination was ordered to address the Veteran’s assertions and to provide an etiology opinion. Unfortunately, after taking into account the Veteran’s STRs and the lay statements of record, the VA examiner provided a negative nexus opinion. The Board notes that there is no competent medical opinion of record that would undermine the March 2020 VA examiner’s medical opinion. Accordingly, service connection for a left wrist condition is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fu, 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.