Citation Nr: 22017151 Decision Date: 03/24/22 Archive Date: 03/24/22 DOCKET NO. 17-51 341 DATE: March 24, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right index finger disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran, who is the appellant, had active service from September 1980 to September 1983 and from October 1989 to March 1990. The Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2021. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Veteran maintains that his current right wrist and right index finger disorders had their onset in service and have continued to the present day. The Board notes that at least a portion of the Veteran's service treatment records have been found to be missing and unavailable. VA has a heightened duty to assist the claimant in developing the claim, as well as to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule and to explain its decision. Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217-18 (2005), citing Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996). See also Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). To date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current right index finger or right wrist disorder and their relationship, if any, to his period of service. The threshold for finding a link between current disability and service is low. Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). On remand, such an etiology opinion should be obtained. At his November 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that he was currently receiving treatment at VA for his wrist. The Veteran's representative requested that these VA treatment records be obtained. VA is deemed to have constructive knowledge of documents which are generated by VA agents or employees. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611,612-13 (1992). If those documents predate a Board decision on appeal, are within VA's control, and could reasonably be expected to be part of the record, then "such documents are, in contemplation of law, before the Secretary and the Board and should be included in the record." Id. at 613. If such material could be determinative of the claim, a remand for readjudication is in order. Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462, 466 (1998); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain all outstanding VA and/or private treatment records related to the Veteran's outstanding claims. If any requested records are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect such and the Veteran notified. 2. The Veteran should be scheduled for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current right index finger or right wrist disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be performed and all findings must be reported in detail. The entire record must be made available for review and the examiner should note such review in his/her report. After a complete review of the claims folder, the examiner is requested to offer the following opinion: Is it as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current right index finger or right wrist disorder is related to the Veteran's period of service? In providing the above opinions, the examiner must consider and address statements and testimony from the Veteran regarding the onset and continuity of symptomatology since service. Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). Complete detailed rationale is requested for any opinion that is rendered. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. S. Kelly, 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.