Citation Nr: 21007126 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-49 619 DATE: February 8, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having not been received, reopening the claim of entitlement to service connection for left hand pain is denied. New and material evidence having not been received, reopening the claim of entitlement to service connection for right hand pain is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In an unappealed May 2004 rating decision, the Veteran was denied entitlement to service connection for right and left hand pain. 2. The evidence received since the May 2004 rating decision does not, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims for service connection for right and left hand pain. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence has not been received sufficient to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for right hand pain. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7104, 7105 (2018); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2019). 2. New and material evidence has not been received sufficient to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for left hand pain. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7104, 7105 (2018); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service from July 2001 to June 2003. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Subsequent to an August 2017 statement of the case, additional VA and private treatment reports were associated with the claims file. In August 2020, the Veteran, via her representative, waived review of the evidence by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction. The Board notes that the Veteran also submitted a notice of disagreement regarding the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for a left ankle disability. However, in her VA Form 9 (Substantive Appeal), the Veteran limited his appeal to the issues noted on the first page of this decision and the Board does not have jurisdiction of the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for a left ankle disability. Claims to Reopen In a May 2004 rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for right and left hand pain, based on a finding that the Veteran did not have a current disability that happened or worsened in service. The Veteran did not appeal that decision. The pertinent evidence that has been received since the May 2004 rating decision includes VA examination reports, post-service treatment records, and the Veteran’s statements. The Board finds that while some of the evidence added to the record is new, as it was not previously considered by VA, it is not material as it does not specifically address the reason the claims were previously denied. Regarding the right and left hand pain, the Veteran has not submitted any evidence indicating that her disabilities are related to her active service. Although the records indicate that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of erythromelalgia to account for her hand pain, none of the evidence links any hand symptoms or the diagnosed erythromelalgia to service or any event or injury incurred therein. The new statements indicate that the Veteran has a current diagnosis which she has generally related to her service which reiterate the statement she made when she filed her initial claim for service connection in August 2003. Therefore, the Board finds that new and material evidence has not been presented sufficient to reopen the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for right and left hand pain. As the Veteran has not fulfilled her threshold burden of submitting new and material evidence to reopen the finally disallowed claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable. See Annoni v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 463, 467 (1993). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Cryan, 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.