Citation Nr: 21042078 Decision Date: 07/11/21 Archive Date: 07/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-53 526A DATE: July 11, 2021 ORDER The claim for service connection for right hand arthritis is denied. The claim for service connection for left hand arthritis is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran has arthritis in either hand that was manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service or is otherwise causally related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for right hand arthritis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for left hand arthritis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1967 to May 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision. These matters in addition to a claim for service connection hypertension were previously remanded by the Board in February 2021 for further development including scheduling the Veteran for VA examinations. Service connection for hypertension has since been granted and effectuated since that time and is no longer on appeal. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with those prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with its remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to insure compliance with the terms of the remand); see also D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that only substantial rather than strict compliance with the Board's remand directives is required under Stegall). 1. Service connection for right hand arthritis 2. Service connection for left hand arthritis Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). 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); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). In addition, certain diseases, such as arthritis, are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifested to a compensable degree within one year after service. The presumption is rebuttable by probative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a) (2019). When chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support a claim for such diseases. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here, the record reflects that the Veteran attended his scheduled February 2021 VA examination regarding his service connection for arthritis of the hands claims and communicated to the examiner that he did not wish to undergo a physical examination. The examination report reflects that the Veteran informed the examiner that he has never have had trauma to his hands or been treated for or diagnosed with arthritis in his hands. He denied any in-service incurrence of these disabilities. He further conveyed that he was informed after he filed his claims that his hand symptoms are attributable to peripheral neuropathy that is secondary to type II diabetes mellitus, he is now service connected for those disabilities. The Veteran's service and post-service medical treatment records do not otherwise reflect a diagnosis for arthritis in either hand. As a threshold matter for a successful service connection claim, there must be evidence of a current disability during the appeal period. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). Here, the Veteran has explicitly denied having the claimed disabilities on appeal and the medical evidence does not otherwise document that he has a current disability. Rather, he has communicated that his symptoms of hand pain, numbness and discomfort, which caused him to submit these claims, have since been associated with his diabetes in the form of diabetic neuropathy, which is now a service-connected disability. (Continued on the next page) Based on the foregoing, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran has the claimed disabilities at any point during the appeal period and the service connection inquiry need not proceed. Id. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kyle McKone 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.