Citation Nr: 21068308 Decision Date: 11/09/21 Archive Date: 11/09/21 DOCKET NO. 18-42 016 DATE: November 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an in-service ulnar nerve injury of the left hand, claimed as a left-hand condition, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has credibly reported residuals of a documents, in-service ulnar nerve injury of the left hand. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an in-service ulnar nerve injury of the left hand, claimed as a left-hand condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1964 to August 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2018 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in November 2021. The Board has recharacterized the claim from entitlement to service connection for a left-hand condition to entitlement to service connection for residuals of an in-service ulnar nerve injury of the left hand. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5. (2009). 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an in-service ulnar nerve injury of the left hand, claimed as a left-hand condition The Veteran contends that his claimed left-hand disability began while on active duty. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that began during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). A March 1967 service treatment record from US Naval Hospital Long Beach notes that as a result of right side pyeloplasty, the Veteran developed an ulnar paresis in his left arm. It was further noted that he had regained 50 to 60 percent of function. A June 1995 treatment record from Kaiser Permanente notes the Veteran reported bilateral hand weakness that suddenly appeared in April of that year. Mild carpal tunnel syndrome was noted. In his May 2018 notice of disagreement (NOD), the Veteran stated that his left hand was paralyzed after his left-hand injury while in the service. He then stated that while his hand improved, his left hand is not as strong as his right hand and never fully recovered. In his July 2018 appeal to the Board, the Veteran stated that in 1967 he had surgery from which a complication caused his left hand to be paralyzed. He stated that the doctors performed electrical shocks to stimulate it and that, though somewhat successful, his hand remained weak, resulting in his being placed on light duty. His wife also testified that they had been married since 1966, that he had no left-hand weakness prior to the surgery, but that he has had problems with his left hand ever since. The Veteran and his wife, as laypersons, are competent to report the onset, duration, and other personally observable symptoms of his left hand, and the Board finds their testimony is credible as to the onset and recurrence of the Veteran's left hand problems. See, Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that evidence reflects competent, credible reports of recurrent left-hand problems since in-service. Thus, after resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for residuals of an in-service ulnar nerve injury of the left hand. See, Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Keeley, Brian 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.