Citation Nr: 22010346 Decision Date: 02/23/22 Archive Date: 02/23/22 DOCKET NO. 17-55 077 DATE: February 23, 2022 ORDER Service connection for a left wrist condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran's left wrist condition had its onset in service, manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left wrist condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from August 2010 to August 2014. In February 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. In August 2021, the Board remanded this matter for additional development. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). There are three requirements to establish service connection: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for certain chronic diseases may be established on a presumptive basis by showing that the condition manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). Although the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumption 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. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). The Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while credibility is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). If the positive and negative evidence is in approximate balance (which includes but is not limited to equipoise), the claimant receives the benefit of the doubt. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F. 4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist condition. The Veteran seeks service connection for a left wrist condition, which he contends is related to an injury that he sustained after falling while training in the Marine Corps. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs), to include his separation examination, are silent for any complaints, findings, treatment or diagnoses related to a left wrist condition. To the contrary, the STRs show that in June 2013, the Veteran sustained a right wrist injury after falling on his right wrist while playing basketball. See STR. Similarly, the Veteran's postservice treatment records are also silent for any complaints, findings, treatment, or diagnoses related to a left wrist condition. In March 2016, the Veteran underwent a VA examination to assess the nature and etiology of his left wrist condition. During the examination, the Veteran reported that his current left wrist condition began during training in the Marines after he fell and landed on his left wrist. Additionally, he indicated that the condition had worsened over time, with increased frequency and severity of the pain. Following a review of the record and an examination of the Veteran, the examiner diagnosed wrist sprain, chronic, and opined that the condition was at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. In his rationale, the examiner explained that the Veteran strained his wrist in service, which would lead to chronic inflammation and strain which was aggravated by movement, and thus could continue to cause pain and decreased range of motion. The examiner further indicated that the injury was documented to have occurred during military service. For these reasons, the examiner opined that the Veteran's current left wrist condition was at least as likely as not incurred during military service. See March 2016 VA Examination. In February 2021, the Veteran testified before a Board hearing. During the hearing, the Veteran asserted that while training in the Marines, he fell and braced himself with his left hand. Since that time, the Veteran asserted that he experienced severe, sharp pain whenever he picked up something heavy, did push-ups, or applied pressure to his left wrist. Following the injury, the Veteran reported seeking treatment for his left wrist but was only given Motrin and was sent on his way. Moreover, the Veteran testified that he did not seek treatment for his left wrist condition following service. In this regard, he indicated that, while his left wrist condition hindered him from doing some things as effectively as he could, it was minor, not chronic, and he just "deal[t] with it." See February 2021 Hearing Transcript. In August 2021, the Board found the March 2016 VA examiner's opinion to be insufficient for rating purposes and remanded the matter in order to obtain a new VA medical opinion. In reaching this determination, the Board noted that, while the Veteran suffered a wrist injury in service while playing basketball, the injury was to his right wrist, which was not the condition on appeal. See August 2021 Board Decision. Thereafter, a December 2021 VA medical opinion was obtained to assess the etiology of the Veteran's left wrist condition. Following a review of the record, the December 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's left wrist condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. In his rationale, the examiner explained that he found no record of chronic or recurrent left wrist problems beginning in service. In this regard, the examiner indicated that, despite the Veteran's statements, there was no objective evidence or documentation in the Veteran's STRs or in the immediate post-separation period to confirm that the Veteran's left wrist condition began in service and affected him chronically. Due to this, the examiner indicated that a nexus for service connection could not be made due to the missing elements of origin and chronicity of the current condition dating to service. See December 2021 VA Medical Opinion. The Board finds this opinion to be highly probative, as it was based on a thorough review of the entire claims file, was well-reasoned, and adequately supported. There is no competent medical opinion, or other evidence, to the contrary. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran's left wrist condition manifested in service, within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to service, to include as a result of falling while training. In reaching this determination, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's February 2021 testimony wherein he suggested his current left wrist condition is related to a fall that he sustained while training in the Marines. However, as a lay person, the Veteran is not competent to provide a medical opinion as to the etiology of his current left wrist condition. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, while the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, the contemporary medical evidence of record indicates that the Veteran injured his right wrist following a fall in service rather than his left. For these reasons, the Board awards limited probative value to the Veteran's assertion that his current left wrist condition is related to a fall that he sustained during service. Accordingly, as the evidence persuasively weighs against the grant of service connection for a left wrist condition, it is not in approximate balance, and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Therefore, service connection for a left wrist condition is denied. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Talton, John H. 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.