Citation Nr: 21015539 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-12 478A DATE: March 17, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a right wrist condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a right wrist condition at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right wrist disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 2000 to October 2012. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of February 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Board previously remanded this case in August 2020. The Board finds that there was substantial compliance with the remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11. Vet. App. 268 (1998). Service connection for a right wrist condition The Veteran contends that his right wrist condition is the result of his military service. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service 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). Service connection may also be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b), where a condition in service is noted but is not, in fact, chronic, or where a diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. The continuity of symptomatology provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) has been interpreted as an alternative to service connection only for the specific chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection may also be established with certain chronic diseases based upon a legal presumption by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more within one year from the date of separation from service. Such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). While the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumptive period, it must be shown, by acceptable lay or medical evidence, that there were characteristic manifestations of the disease to the required degree during that time. Following a thorough review of the claims file, the Board notes that the Veteran was afforded VA wrist examinations in January 2013 and October 2017. The January 2013 examiner noted no wrist history or abnormal physical findings. The examiner also noted that the Veteran had not been diagnosed with any wrist condition. The examination was normal. The October 2017 examiner noted no currently identified wrist diagnosis, condition, or disability pattern. No wrist osteoarthritis diagnosis was found in the medical record. All range of motion testing was noted to be normal. In August 2020, the Board remanded this appeal as a review of the VA treatment records, including a September 2018 VA addendum record noted that the Veteran had been referred for an EMG to address potential right carpal tunnel syndrome. In addition, a July 2018 VA treatment record noted the Veteran was scheduled for a right wrist MRI that was cancelled and rescheduled. Pursuant to the Board remand, additional outstanding VA treatment records have been obtained and associated with the claims file. However, a review of these records did not reveal a diagnosis of right carpal tunnel syndrome or any other current right wrist condition. As such, the Board finds there is no evidence of a confirmed diagnosis of a current right wrist condition. In the absence of proof of present disability there can be no successful claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Court has held that the requirement for service connection that a current disability be present is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary’s adjudicate on of the claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Furthermore, the Board has considered this case in light of Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Saunders, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that pain may be considered a disability for VA purposes, even when there is no identified underlying diagnosis, if it results in a functional impairment of earning capacity. The Federal Circuit ultimately held in Saunders that in order to establish the presence of a disability, a Veteran will need to show that his or her pain reaches the level of functional impairment of earning capacity. Id. at 1368. That noted, the Board finds the present case to be readily distinguishable from Saunders. Not only is there no competent medical evidence suggesting functional impairment of earning capacity in either January 2013 or the October 2017 VA examinations, the Veteran himself has not provided lay evidence specifically suggesting such impairment. Quite simply, there exists no basis for finding that a threshold of functional impairment of earning capacity has been met. Absent such evidence, there can be no finding of a disability per Saunders. Without any supporting records or testimony, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against a determination that the Veteran has had a right wrist condition at any time during the pendency of the claim. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran is considered competent to report the observable manifestations of his claimed disability. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, as to the specific issues in this case, such as whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a claimed disorder and the date of onset of such disorder, they fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, his opinions are not significantly probative and are outweighed by the medical evidence of record noted above. In sum, the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran had an in-service, or current diagnoses, of neurologic impairment of the right wrist. (Continued on the next page)   As described, service connection for a right wrist condition is not warranted because the Veteran has not satisfied the first requirement of service connection, i.e., a current diagnosis of a disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992) 3 Vet. App. at 225. Accordingly, the claim is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Yoo, 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.