Citation Nr: 21075006 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-35 668 DATE: December 17, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left middle finger and/or left ring finger disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a left middle finger disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a left ringer finger disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a left middle finger disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for a left ring finger disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from February 1985 to February 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2021 via a videoconference hearing. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. In June 2021, the Board remanded this matter for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for a left ring finger disability Initially, the Board notes the Veteran, at various points throughout his medical and claims history has reported that he was claiming entitlement to a disability of the left middle finger and at other junctures a disability of the left ring finger. The Board described such after reopening the left middle finger matter in June 2021. After granting the petition to reopen, the Board recharacterized the issue and remanded the matter of entitlement to service connection for left middle and/or ring finger. In light of this, the Board will now evaluate each finger to determine if there is any condition where service connection is warranted for the left middle and left ring finger in order to give the Veteran the broadest scope of his claim, to include by his description. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A review of the Veteran's service treatment records shows that the Veteran was treated in February 1986 for an injury to the left middle finger. Slight swelling at the medial joint was assessed. The Veteran was provided a splint to the left finger. Left middle finger PIP swelling was also noted. X-rays conducted at the time showed that the left middle finger had no acute fracture, but a calcified density in the soft tissue of the palm which was identified as a foreign body. An August 2001 claim filed by the Veteran showed that he reported he was playing games in the field, he fell, and was playing basketball which resulted in an injured finger. He identified the middle index finger of the left hand as the disability for which he was claiming service connection. A January 2002 VA examination report shows that the Veteran had a basketball injury around 1985 where he had a fracture through the PIP joint, of the left ring finger. Examination showed the left ring finger with swelling and deformity of the PIP joint. The Veteran was assessed with residual fracture of the left ring finger. The examiner noted that the Veteran service treatment records were not available for review. A March 2002 statement submitted by the Veteran reported that he meant to file a claim for the left fourth finger as that was the finger he injured during active service. He indicated he made a mistake on his application and stated that he knew it was his left fourth finger he injured. In a June 2003 statement submitted by the Veteran her reported that he knew that he did not injure his left ring finger but injured his left middle finger during service. A January 2005 statement submitted by the Veteran shows he reported he was treated for a left ring finger injury in service and not the left middle finger as noted in his service treatment records. He indicated a belief that the persons treating him used the wrong nomenclature by stating "middle" finger. An April 2005 statement submitted by the Veteran shows he reported he did not injury his left ring finger during service but that the injury occurred prior to service. Instead, the Veteran reported that he injured his left middle finger in service and this the finger still hurt. He reported treating the finger with Ibuprofen. A January 2011 VA treatment record shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with left ring finger bony mass, which was surgically removed. In April 2016 the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for left middle finger as noted by Veteran on the application form and his representation in the cover letter. An April 2021 Board hearing transcript shows that the Veteran testified that there was a mix up regarding his claimed condition. The Veteran testified that he was attempting to establish service connection for a left ring finger disability. He reported he injured his ring finger during active service playing basketball. Subsequently, in June 2021, the Board remanded for additional development, to include a VA examination. A July 2021 VA hand and finger examination report shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with a sprained middle finger which occurred in February 1986 and post-operative ring finger in January 2011. The examiner noted that the Veteran sustained a left middle finger injury in active service and presently had pain to the left 4th/ring finger which resulted in surgery in 2011. Examination results showed normal functioning the left middle finger with no pain or impairment noted, to include normal range of motion. Regarding the left ring finger, pain to palpation to the medial and lateral aspects of the left 4th finger proximal interphalangeal joint. Pain on active and passive motion was assessed for the left ring finger. He examiner noted that a review of the Veteran's service treatment records shows an injury only to the left middle finger and not the left ring/4th finger. Therefore, it was less likely than not that he current complaints and diagnosis of his left right/4th finger condition was related to the military service. Regarding the claim for a left middle finger disability, the Board concludes that, based on the probative and competent evidence of record, the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a left middle finger disability and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The evidence of record shows that the Veteran clearly injured his left middle ring finger during active service, which is noted in service treatment records dated February 1986. As noted above, x-rays revealed no fracture and he was assessed with a sprain. However, post-service treatment records to include VA examination reports show no diagnosis of a left middle finger disability to include an absence of painful motion or functional impairments, to include upon VA examination in 2021. Although there was an injury in service, as explained above a preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current left middle finger disability or functional impairment of earning capacity from and symptoms of the right finger. Without such during the appeal period, there is a missing element of service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); see also Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim is denied. Regarding the Veteran's claim for a left ring/4th finger, the Board finds that the evidence of record does not support a finding of service connection. First, the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any left ring finger injury or disability. The service treatment records from February 1986 show that the left middle finger was injured playing basketball not the left ring/4th finger as the Veteran has claimed. While the Veteran has maintained that there has been a "mix up" regarding which finger was injured during service and the service treatment records were incorrect, the Board finds it significant and of weight that when the Veteran first filed a claim for service connection in 2001, he asserted the left middle finger condition was related to service, and it was only after service connection was denied in a March 2002 rating decision, that he asserted that his there was a mistake regarding the diagnosis during active service. Moreover, the evidence indicates that the Veteran was diagnosed with a residual fracture noted in the 2002 VA examination report, but contemporaneous in-service x-rays showed no fracture from the 1986 injury. Additionally, while the 2002 VA examiner reported that the Veteran fractured his left ring finger during service, the examiner acknowledged that no service treatment records were reviewed. Therefore, as the findings of the 2002 VA examiner was provided without a review of the service treatment records, the report by the examiner of an in-service ring finger fracture is of low probative value and weight as the diagnosis was based upon an incomplete factual record. Unlike the 2002 VA examination report, the more recent July 2021 VA examiner provided an etiological opinion with the complete service treatment records to determine that it was less likely than not that any left ring finger disability was related to or incurred during active service. As the July 2021 VA examination was conducted with that availability of the service treatment records and an in-person examination of the Veteran, the Board assigns this report high probative value and weight. Furthermore, for these reasons and the examiner's opinion was based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data is also probative and given weight. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). While the Veteran is clearly competent to report a finger injury that occurred during service, the Board finds that his report that the service treatment records are essentially wrong, and he was treated for a left ring finger disability and not a left middle finger disability as reflected in the file, not credible. The Board find this assertion is in conflict with the notations by medical professions in the service treatment records and that there are multiple notations identifying the left middle finger as the affected finger. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995) (noting that the credibility of a witness may be impeached by a showing of interest, bias, inconsistent statements, consistency with other evidence), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Notably, it was not until 2002, after his first claim for service connection for a left middle finger disability, which is more than a decade after separation from service did the Veteran assert that there was a mistake in his service treatment records. The Board finds the contemporaneous recordings in the service treatment records, made for the purpose of documenting treatment, such as a left hand injury, to be more probative than later statements by the Veteran. As noted above, the Veteran's original claim for VA compensation, received in August 2001, reflects a claim for middle index finger of the left hand. The Board gives this document weight as it is consistent with the service treatment records show treatment, to include radiographic reports, of the left middle finger. In sum, the Board finds that the preponderance of the competent and probative evidence shows that the Veteran's current left ring/4th finger disability did not onset and was not caused by active service. Therefore, service connection for this issue is denied. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Dworkin, 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.