Citation Nr: 21009848 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 09-02 137 DATE: February 23, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a disability of the right little finger is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s right little finger disability is related to his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a disability of the right little finger have been met. 38U.S.C. §§1131, 5107;38C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from May 1975 to April 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in April 2008 by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. The Board most recently remanded this matter in January 2020 for a clarifying VA examination and to obtain outstanding records. Following completion of the development requested therein, the Veteran’s appeal has been returned to the Board for final adjudication. Service connection is granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38C.F.R. §3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence of: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) inservice 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). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b), service connection will be presumed where there are either chronic symptoms shown in service or continuity of symptomatology since service for diseases identified as “chronic” in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a).Walker v. Shinseki,718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). When all evidence is assembled, VA must determine whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski¸1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Veteran contends that he has a disability of his right little finger that is related to his service. At the February 2020 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis of the right hand and contracture of right 5th digit. Additionally, service medical records confirm that the Veteran was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he was found to have sustained lacerations to his hands. Accordingly, two of the three elements for service connection are established for this claim. This appeal thus turns on whether there is a nexus between the Veteran’s current right little finger disability and the in-service event. In the February 2020 VA examination, the examiner noted the Veteran’s report of an in-service car accident as well as the Veteran’s report of continuing pain in his right hand since the accident. The examiner provided a negative nexus opinion and, in so doing, found that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s right little finger disability was related to his in-service car accident. The examiner’s rational was that there no evidence of treatment for his accident. The examiner continued stating that it is not possible to determine whether the Veteran’s current right little finger deformity is due to the July 1979 motor vehicle accident as there is no documentation of the accident or treatment. The examiner also stated that, although laceration involving the tendons of the finger could cause a contracture, he was unable to offer a definitive etiological opinion without further documentation. While the Board cannot ignore or disregard a VA examiner’s medical conclusions, Willis v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 66 (1991), the Board is free to assess medical evidence and is not compelled to accept a medical opinion. Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992). In this case, the February 2020 VA examiner’s opinion is problematic because the examiner did not address the Veteran’s competent report of relevant symptoms. The examiner did note in his rational that the Veteran experienced pain but did not explain why the Veteran’s claims of pain in his hand was or was not related to the Veteran’s disability or his in-service motor vehicle accident. Additionally, the examiner stated that the Veteran’s motor vehicle accident could have caused the Veteran’s disability but that it would be speculative to determine if the motor vehicle accident did cause the injury. As the examiner was unable to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s contracture of right 5th digit, the medical opinion does not weigh in favor or against the Veteran’s claim. As such, the opinion does not assist the Board in resolving this claim and cannot serve as the basis of a denial of service connection. Importantly, the record contains favorable evidence in the form of lay statements from the Veteran, who has consistently maintained that his right-hand pain has continued since service. This supporting evidence places the pertinent record in at least relative equipoise. Accordingly, in view of the totality of the evidence, including the recognition of an in- service accident, current findings of contracture of right 5th digit, and credible lay assertions describing a continuity of relevant symptomatology since service, the Board finds that the evidence of record is at least in relative equipoise regarding this appeal. In reaching this decision, the Board acknowledges that the February 2020 VA examiner did not address the effect, if any, of the intercurrent post-service injury to the Veteran’s right hand, as the Board had requested in its last remand. Significantly, however, for the reasons set forth in this decision, the Board finds that the evidence in this appeal is in relative equipoise. Accordingly, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine provides that such reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Service connection for a disability of the right little finger is warranted. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Edward G. Lent 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.