Citation Nr: 21002999 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-37 287 DATE: January 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right-hand disability, claimed as tendonitis and degenerative joint disease, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, her right-hand disability had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a right-hand disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran retired from the Air Force following active duty service from December 1988 to August 2011. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In October 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, and a transcript of the hearing is of record. Service Connection The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for a right-hand disability. For reasons stated below, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. The Veteran underwent a retirement physical examination in March 2011, listing her intent to file a claim with the VA for surgery on her right wrist and that she “still ha[s] pain”. Prior to separating from service, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection of a right wrist “ganglion cyst” with scar in May 2011. She further amended her claim as “tendonitis due to” her right-hand scar in September 2015. The VA recharacterized her claim as tendonitis and degenerative joint disease of the right-hand. Entitlement to service connection for a right-hand condition, to include tendonitis and degenerative joint disease. The Board finds that service connection based on continuity is warranted for the Veteran’s right-hand disability. Generally, to establish service connection for a present disability, "the 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." Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). First, the Board concedes a current disability as to the Veteran’s right-hand. Specifically, she was diagnosed with right wrist tendonitis and degenerative joint disease (arthritis) of the carpal metacarpal joint (CMC) by a private physician in May 2013. While pain alone does not constitute a disorder warranting service connection, pain causing an impairment of earning capacity is considered a current disability. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Wait v. Wilkie, No. 18-4349. Here, the Veteran, in a competent and credible statement to her December 2015 examiner, indicated right hand pain, exacerbated by use. Since the Veteran, employed in an office setting, experiences pain while typing on a keyboard, using a mouse or reading, the Board considers this pain a current disability. Accordingly, a current disability of the right-hand is conceded. Next, the Board observes evidence of a right-hand disorder in and since service. In this regard, the evidence shows abnormalities of the right hand since January 2000, when the Veteran sought treatment for pain of a right-hand nodule. Moreover, she underwent surgery to remove a cyst on her right wrist in April 2000, at which point the pain appeared to subside. However, in August 2001 she again sought treatment for occasional pain of the right wrist and was diagnosed with tendonitis. During treatment through occupational therapy in September 2001, she was noted to have pain doing sustained tasks, with decreased strength and ability to participate in leisure activities. Further review of her service treatment records shows a complaint of right wrist pain in April 2009, and a note of chronic wrist pain during her retirement examination in March 2011. A November 2012 post-service complaint includes right wrist pain, soreness and fatigue conducting office tasks. Additional post-service right wrist pain complaints occur during private treatment in May 2013, May 2014 correspondence to the RO from the Veteran, a December 2015 VA examination and the October 2020 Board hearing. Thus, the Veteran has credibly and competently attested to a right-hand condition in service, with continued symptoms since. Accordingly, service connection is warranted for the right-hand disability based on chronicity of symptomatology and the Veteran’s credible statements. The Board notes the December 2015 VA examination, determining that the Veteran’s right-hand condition is less likely than not related to service. The examiner denied service connection, stating that her tendonitis was related to overuse and her arthritis related to age-related degenerative changes. This opinion, when coupled with the Veteran’s competent, credible report of pain since service as well as the lay and medical evidence, suggests that the Veteran’s degenerative changes had onset in service. This is particularly so as the Veteran was on active duty from December 1988 to August 2011. The Board finds the December 2015 VA examination to lack in probative value compared to the Veteran’s assertions of pain and functional impairment since service. Accordingly, the Board finds the evidence in equipoise that the Veteran’s right-hand disability, diagnosed as tendonitis and degenerative joint disease, had its onset in service. Thus, service connection for a right-hand disability is warranted. 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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. McDonald