Citation Nr: 20060563 Decision Date: 09/15/20 Archive Date: 09/15/20 DOCKET NO. 15-40 444 DATE: September 15, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Raynaud's syndrome, claimed as right-hand nerve damage is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against the finding that the Veteran’s Raynaud’s disease had its onset during service or is otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for Raynaud’s syndrome, claimed as right-hand nerve damage, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1979 to January 1986 and from January 1986 to April 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) from a July 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2018, the Veteran testified via videoconference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. In April 2019, the Board remanded this claim for a VA examination. The Board finds the April 2019 remand directives have been substantially complied with, and the matter is again before the Board. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for Raynaud's syndrome, claimed as a right-hand condition The Veteran asserts that his Raynaud’s syndrome is related to service. In favor of his assertion the Veteran explains that he served in various cold places, and that this exposure to cold weather resulted in the development of Raynaud’s syndrome. See hearing transcript pages 4 and 6. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, §1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (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 or aggravated during service the so-called “nexus” requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In order to prevail on the issue of service connection, there must be medical evidence of current disability; medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1990). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and an evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1990); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). The Veteran has been diagnosed with Raynaud’s syndrome. See medical records for January 2014 and medical opinion of October 2019. As the Veteran has a current diagnosis, his claim surpasses the first prong of the Shedden service connection test; a current disability. The Board notes that although the Veteran initially claimed service connection for right hand nerve damage, the Veteran’s medical records do not support the finding that the Veteran has been diagnosed with right hand nerve damage. It is initially noted that a review of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) shows no evidence that he manifested Reynaud’s during service or that he sustained a chronic cold weather injury that resulted in residual disability on active duty. However, the Veteran asserts that during his service he was exposed to cold weather while in Virginia. See hearing transcript page 4. His military personnel records show he had service in Virginia. See personnel records; history of assignments and STRs. As such, resolving doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the Veteran’s claim surpasses the second prong of the Shedden service connection test regarding exposure to cold weather in service. Now, the question that remains before the Board is whether the Veteran’s Raynaud syndrome is related to his in-service incurrence of exposure to cold weather. In December 2018, the Veteran submitted a medical opinion subscribed by a physician who noted the Veteran’s diagnosis of Raynaud’s syndrome and opined that it was at least as likely as not related to a back injury in service. See medical opinion December 2018. The physician did not provide a rationale or explanation for the opinion expressed. As such, the Board must afford this medical opinion low probative value. The Board notes neither the Veteran nor his representative have argued that the Veteran’s Raynaud condition is secondary to his back condition. In October 2019, pursuant to the Board remand instructions, the Veteran was administered a Hand and Finger Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (Hand DBQ). The examiner noted normal range of motion in the Veteran’s right hand. Following this examination, the examiner subscribed a medical opinion that noted the Veteran’s diagnosis of Raynaud’s syndrome and opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not related to service as the condition was diagnosed more than 1 year after the Veteran’s separation from service, the Veteran had not been treated for the condition during service nor did he report any hand issues in his report of medical history for separation dated March 1989. The Board finds this medical opinion adequate and affords it high probative value. The Board notes the Veteran is competent to describe the symptoms he has observed regarding his claimed condition; however, the Veteran is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding the relationship between his Raynaud’s syndrome and his exposure to cold weather. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). (Continued on the next page)   Based on all of the above, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding that the Veteran’s Raynaud’s syndrome originated in service or is otherwise etiologically related to service, to include his exposure to cold weather. The Board observes that although the Veteran presented a medical opinion and lay statements in favor of his claim, the most probative evidence of record does not support the finding that his current Raynaud’s syndrome is related to his service. As such, the claim for service connection does not surpass the third prong of the Shedden service-connection and the claim must be denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Gonzalez-Maldonado 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.