Citation Nr: 21021776 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-17 415 DATE: April 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right arm ulnar neuropathy and carpal tunnel is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right arm scarring is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s right arm ulnar nerve damage and carpal tunnel began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the right arm scarring began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for right arm ulnar neuropathy and carpal tunnel are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a)-(b), (d), 3.307, 3.309(a). 2. The criteria for service connection right arm scarring are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from May 1980 to May 1983. This case comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2017, the Veteran presented testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The Board remanded this case in September 2017 for additional development. The Board denied the Veteran’s claims of service connection in a November 2018 decision. The Veteran appealed the Board’s November 2018 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which in an April 2020 order, vacated the Board’s November 2018 decision and remanding the case for compliance with the terms of the Court’s decision. In October 2020, the Board remanded this case for further development and compliance with the Court’s April 2020 order. Service Connection The Veteran asserts that in May 1982 he was injured climbing up a ladder to get onto the side of the pool, but the handle broke causing him to fall and land on the concrete. As the handle broke and the Veteran fell, he injured his left foot and cut his right arm on the handle. He indicates that he was seen at a hospital for surgery to repair two arteries, three veins, and two muscles that were torn open in his right forearm. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting in a disease or injury that is incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 U.S.C. § 3.303. To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). A veteran is presumed sound except as to defect, infirmities, or disorders noted at entry or where there is clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrating that an injury or disease existed prior to service and was not aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1132; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b). Here, the Veteran is presumed sound with respect to his right forearm ulnar nerve damage, carpal tunnel, and scarring. Although it is noted on entry that the Veteran had a scar on his right elbow, there are no notations of defects or injuries to his right forearm. Right arm ulnar neuropathy, carpal tunnel, and right arm scar The November 2017 VA examination show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of right arm ulnar neuropathy and carpal tunnel. He also has a right arm scar. Here, the issue is whether the Veteran had an in-service injury or disease. Although the Veteran assert that his records are incomplete, there is significant evidence supporting a conclusion that they are complete. He reports that after service he unsuccessfully tried to retrieve his medical records. However, January 2015 correspondence shows that the hospital forwards all medical records for service members after separation to the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). The NPRC did not have any medical records for the Veteran from July to September 1982. May 1982 service treatment records clearly show the Veteran’s hospital emergency room visit for a left foot injury. See May 1982 VA treatment records. Following the Court’s remand, the Board also directed the RO to attempt to obtain additional medical records from the hospital where the Veteran states he was treated. In November 2020, the Veteran contacted the RO and corrected the dates from which the RO should seek records from the medical hospital. See November 2020 VA form 21-0820. In January 2021, the RO sent a letter to the hospital requesting any medical records from the dates the Veteran specified. See January 2021 correspondence. The hospital responded and sent documents showing that there are no additional medical records for the Veteran. See January 2021 VA treatment record. The Board notes that at first glance the service treatment record noting treatment in May 1982 for a foot injury and the hospital response indicating the lack of additional medical records support the Veteran’s contention that his records are incomplete. However, this is not the case. First, all available records were forwarded to the NPRC. The only record found was the May 1982 service treatment record showing a foot injury. As noted below, other service treatment records following May 1982 further support that the Veteran’s records are complete and that he did not sustain an injury to his right arm. These record specifically show that there was an impact of a foot injury resulting in physical profile changes while there are no such follow ups, physical profile changes, or other evidence indicating injury to the right arm consistent with the severity described by the Veteran. Moreover, the January 2018 VA examiner concluded that the lack of post-operative status or right arm injury treatment is inconsistent with the right arm injury severity as described by the Veteran. Normally, the absence of evidence is insufficient to make an affirmative declaration. However, here the Veteran’s records are complete and there is a medical opinion concluding that based on the severity of the injury, the lack of treatment or post-operation notes is inconsistent with the occurrence of an injury of this magnitude. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 434-35 (2011); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); Horn v. Shinseki, 28 Vet. App. 231 (2012). Additionally, the Board notes that prior to May 1982, the Veteran received treatment for various medical issues, but after May 1982 there are no complaints consistent with an injury to the right forearm. In October 1980, March, June, and August 1981 service treatment records, the Veteran reported warts underneath his right arm and having his middle finger caught in a door, resulting in an emergency room visit. May 1982 service treatment records show the Veteran went to the hospital for a left foot injury. Throughout the Veteran’s entire service treatment records, there are no medical reports or lay statements consistent with the Veteran injuring his right arm in May 1982. After May 1982, there are no complaints, injuries, treatment records, or lay statements consistent with injury to the Veteran’s right arm. Following the left leg injury, in September 1982, the Veteran was put on a profile limiting him to no more than 20 minutes of crawling, stooping, jumping, marching, standing, or strenuous activity. He was completely restricted from running. As a result, the Veteran’s statements about injuring his right arm after being cut by the ladder handle are entitled to no probative weight because they are inconsistent with the other evidence of record and there is an absence of evidence in the record. Additionally, the Board finds the Veteran’s right arm ulnar neuropathy, carpal tunnel, and right arm scarring have not consistently displayed symptoms since service. With respect to right arm pain or injury, statements from the Veteran’s Marine friend, Army friend, and wife are entitled to less probative weight because even though they state that since service the Veteran has experienced pain, none of these statements detail or highlight that the Veteran experienced symptoms consistent with right arm pain, numbness, or related nerve damage. The Veteran’s Army friend describes that since 1983, the Veteran experienced constant pain because of his back. His Marine friend highlighted that the Veteran experienced pain because of his injuries and that these injuries resulted in a less active lifestyle. The Marine friend does not highlight any specific complaints with respect to the Veteran’s right arm. The Veteran’s wife recounts that since 1983, the Veteran had challenges standing, getting to the bathroom, showering, and getting dressed, and how this difficulty resulted in substance abuse. The Board notes the Veteran did not have a separation examination, but after service there are no complaints, treatments, or evidence suggesting the presence of right arm ulnar neuropathy, scarring, carpal tunnel, or post-operative treatment. The Veteran asserts that after service he was unable to seek treatment for his right arm condition because he could not afford medical insurance.   However, the grant of service connection for right arm ulnar neuropathy, carpal tunnel, and right arm scarring is not warranted because the preponderance of the evidence shows that the disabilities are not related to or had their onset in service. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Ijitimehin, Kemi D. 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.