Citation Nr: 21011639 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 15-31 451A DATE: March 2, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the claim for entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition is reopened. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist condition is remanded. FINDING OF FACT 1. The claim for service connection for a left wrist condition was last denied in an November 2007 rating decision. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal or submit new and material evidence within the appeal period, and the decision is final. 2. Evidence received since the November 2007 denial is new and relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim for service connection for a left wrist condition. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to reopen the claim for service connection for a left wrist condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1992 to November 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for a left wrist condition Generally, if a claim of entitlement to service connection has been previously denied and that decision became final, the claim can be reopened and reconsidered only if new and material evidence is presented with respect to that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. New evidence is defined as existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence means evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The threshold to reopen the claim is low. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 118 (2010). The Veteran’s claim for service connection for a left wrist condition was initially denied in an August 2007 rating decision on the basis that there was no evidence linking the current condition to service. A November 2007 rating decision confirmed the denial. The Veteran did not appeal the rating decision or submit new and material evidence within one year of the decision, and the decision is final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 20.302, 20.1103 (2018); see also Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The evidence added to the record since the November 2007 rating decision includes the Veteran’s report that he injured his wrist in service with continued chronic pain since then and additional treatment records reflecting the Veteran’s wrist pain is likely related to post-traumatic arthritis. The Board finds that some of the evidence received since the August 2007 denial is new and relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim for service connection for a left wrist condition. Accordingly, new and material evidence has been received, and the claim for service connection for a left wrist condition is reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist condition is remanded. The Veteran contends that his bilateral wrist pain is related to service. Specifically, he reports chronic left wrist pain and swelling since 1994. Alternatively, he contends that bilateral wrist pain is due to numerous push-ups in service. Service treatment records shows that the Veteran reported a right wrist pain with swelling in June 1993. During a July 1993 follow up visit, the Veteran requested a bone scan. In May 1994, the he reported left arm pain after a fall in-service. A December 2020 left wrist MRI shows chronic arthritic changes. In January 2014 a VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral wrist condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by his military service. The examiner noted in part that tendonitis and bursitis are not known causes of dorsal ganglion, which the Veteran has of the left wrist, therefore these conditions are unrelated, and his ganglion is unlikely secondary to his time in service. Given the record before it, the Board finds that an addendum opinion is needed. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his bilateral wrist condition. After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified that are not duplicates of those associated with the claims file. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. Send the claims file to an appropriate VA examiner to obtain an addendum opinion. If a new examination is deemed necessary to respond to the question presented, one should be scheduled. After review of the claims file, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s left and/or right wrist condition is a continuation or maturation of the wrist pain complaints in service, or is otherwise related to his military service to include the May 1994 fall in service and/or doing numerous push-ups in service. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for the conclusions reached. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Asare, Associate 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.