Citation Nr: 21011675 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 15-40 123 DATE: March 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left-hand disability is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include anxiety and depression is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hand disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a left hand disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a left hand disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 2008 to May 2009 and from October 2017 to August 2018. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision. The Veteran filed his application for entitlement to service connection for a left hand disability in March 2014. A September 2014 rating decision denied the Veteran’s left hand claim finding that the evidence does not show an event, disease or injury in service or a current diagnosis for this condition. Concurrent with the above claim for a left hand disability, in September 2014, the Veteran filed another application for entitlement to service connection for a right hand disability (addressed further in the remand section below). That claim was denied in a February 2015 rating decision. On June 2, 2015, the Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) containing inconsistent information. In the portion of the NOD dealing with the notification/decision date, the Veteran put down October 9, 2014. The file does not contain a rating decision or notification bearing that date. The narrative portion of the NOD also contains inconsistent information. The Veteran stated: “I had earlier submitted a claim for my (right hand) but I messed up and said it was my right hand.” See June 2, 2015 NOD. While it appears that there was some confusion regarding which hand the Veteran was claiming service connection for, the Veteran was nevertheless provided a statement of the case for the left hand in September 2015. In a Form 9 substantive appeal filed on October 28, 2015 the Veteran selected the option to appeal all issues listed on the statement of the case and did not restrict his appeal to the issues of service connection for a right hand condition and depression. Moreover, in a brief filed on January 11, 2021, the Veteran’s representative submitted argument for claims in this case, to include entitlement to service connection for a left hand disability. Accordingly, in light of the above, the Board will proceed with adjudicating the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left hand condition. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 and 1131 as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current left-hand disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In the instant case, there is no indication of a current diagnosis of a left hand disability. Likewise, the Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any diagnosis, complaint, or treatment for a left hand condition. More importantly, the post-service records fail to indicate such a problem. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a left hand disability and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). While the Veteran may believe, or have believed at one point during the course of this appeal, that he had a left hand disability, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the most probative evidence of record fails to demonstrate that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has a current left hand disability that had its onset during active service, that there is a current left hand disability that is otherwise causally or etiologically related to his active service. As such, service connection for a left hand disability is not warranted and the claim is denied. Degmetich, 104 F. 3d at 1333. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include anxiety and depression is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right hand disability is remanded. The Board regrets the delay but finds another remand is necessary in the Veteran’s claims to service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition and a right hand disability. A claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability is deemed to encompass all psychiatric diagnoses reasonably presented in the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Pursuant to Clemons, the Board has expanded the service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder as reflected on the title page of this decision. A medical examination or medical opinion is necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but: (1) contains competent evidence of a current diagnosed disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) establishes that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or certain diseases manifested during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies; and (3) indicates that the disability or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury or disease in service or with another service-connected disability. McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Veteran’s service treatments contain indications of a history of depression, and complaints of emotional problems on a February 2009 post-deployment assessment. The Veteran’s treatment records also indicate complaints of right hand pain and discomfort. To date, the Veteran has not been offered VA examinations for his claimed acquired psychiatric condition and right hand disability. The Board finds that the available evidence and the Veteran’s assertions that symptoms have been present since service, mee the low McClendon threshold and a remand for initial VA examinations is warranted. Once again, the Board regrets the additional delay, however the Veteran has requested examinations and the Board will be able to make a more fully informed decision on his claims with the additional examinations. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain any of the Veteran’s outstanding medical records and associate them with the claims file. If possible, the Veteran himself should submit any pertinent evidence regarding the condition at issue in order to expedite the claim. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorders. If the Veteran is unable or does not want to appear in person, a medical opinion should still be obtained. Specifically, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any of the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder had its onset during or is otherwise related to active service. A complete rationale for any opinions expressed should be provided. The report should set forth all complaints, findings, and diagnoses relating to the Veteran’s mental health conditions and provide a rationale for all conclusions reached. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed right hand disability. Specifically, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s right hand condition, if any, had its onset during or is otherwise related to active service. A complete rationale for any opinions expressed should be provided. (Continued on the next page)   4. After completion of the aforementioned, the AOJ should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, then the AOJ should provide the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case and afford him the appropriate opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case must be returned to the Board for further appellate review. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board V. Woehlke 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.