Citation Nr: 21039763 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 17-44 608 DATE: July 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, her right wrist disability began during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for right wrist disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 26, 2008 to June 1, 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2020 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability The Veteran contends that her right wrist disability began during service and has continued to the present. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that began during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The Veteran has a current right wrist disability. The Veteran testified at the May 2021 hearing that she began experiencing wrist pain around December 2009 while pregnant during her active duty service. She further testified that she reported her wrist pain during a visit regarding her pregnancy and was encouraged to wear a wrist brace in January 2010 as swelling was a common pregnancy symptom. A review of her service treatment records indicates the Veteran discussed "common discomforts of pregnancy" at the January 2010 visit. July 2011 private orthopedic treatment notes show the Veteran reported pain in her wrist for over a year. In September 2015, the Veteran underwent surgery for a right wrist triangular fibrocartilage complex tear. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service. On this question there are probative opinions in favor of the claim. The evidence against the claim includes no explicit mention of wrist pain during service. The evidence in favor of the claim includes a January 2017 letter from the Veteran's physician, buddy statements from the Veteran's fellow soldiers and her spouse, and the Veteran's own lay testimony. In January 2017, the Veteran's orthopedic doctor submitted a letter indicating that the Veteran initially developed symptoms in 2010 while she was pregnant. The doctor indicated that the tear of the TFCC and need for subsequent surgeries is likely related to the initial complaints in 2010. In December 2019, the Veteran's spouse submitted a statement regarding the onset of the Veteran's wrist pain. The spouse noted that the Veteran injured her wrist in December 2009 and continued to experience symptoms in January 2010. In January 2020, several of the Veteran's fellow soldiers submitted buddy statements indicating they recalled seeing the Veteran wearing a wrist brace in January 2010 during her pregnancy and active duty service. The Veteran has consistently asserted that her right wrist pain began around January 2010, and that she reported right wrist pain and swelling during the January 2010 visit regarding her pregnancy. The Veteran further submitted photographs from 2010 showing the use of a wrist brace. The Board notes that the Veteran's lay statements to her physicians regarding the onset of her right wrist pain were made in the pursuit of treatment for those conditions. Cucuras v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 993 F.2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (finding no error in fact-finder's decision to give more weight contemporaneous medical records generated for treatment purposes than to contrary lay testimony, reasoning that "[m]edical records, in general, warrant consideration as trustworthy evidence, and that "oral testimony in conflict with contemporaneous documentary evidence deserves little weight"); Williams v. Gov. of Virgin Islands, 271 F.Supp.2d 696, 702 (V.I. 2003) (noting that statements made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment "are regarded as inherently reliable because of the recognition that one seeking medical treatment is keenly aware of the necessity for being truthful in order to secure proper care"). Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current right wrist disability arose in service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for right wrist disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.