Citation Nr: 22019316 Decision Date: 04/01/22 Archive Date: 04/01/22 DOCKET NO. 15-43 736 DATE: April 1, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability other than carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 1975 to May 1981. He also had periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) in the United States Navy Reserve from November 1981 to December 1998. This case initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2012 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This appeal was previously before the Board in September 2018, October 2020, and June 2021. The June 2021 decision, in part, denied service connection for a left wrist disability. The Veteran subsequently appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In January 2022, the CAVC granted the parties' Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), vacating that part of the June 2021 Board decision and remanding the claim for service connection for a left wrist disability for further action consistent with the JMPR. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability other than carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is remanded. In the June 2021 decision, the Board noted that a September 2010 private treatment record documented "degenerative changes" of the left wrist and that a December 2020 examination did not show any degenerative changes of the left wrist. The Board gave the December 2020 record more probative weight. In the January 2022 JMPR, the parties agreed that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases as to why it weighed the December 2020 X-ray report over the September 2010 X-ray report. Upon review of the record, the Board notes the evidence of record does not contain the September 2010 X-ray report mentioned in the September 3, 2010 private treatment note, nor does the record show that the AOJ attempted to obtain this treatment record. A remand is required to attempt to obtain this record. Additionally, in light of the concerns raised in the JMPR, the Board finds that another VA examination is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should request that the Veteran complete a VA Form 21-4142 for the private provider who ordered the September 2010 X-rays of the left wrist. Make two requests for the X-ray report, unless it is clear after rhe first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Then, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any left wrist disability, other than CTS, that may be present. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. Following a review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion with respect to the following: (a) Identify any current left wrist disability, other than CTS. The examiner should specifically address whether the Veteran has left wrist arthritis. The examiner should consider and comment on the September 2010 private treatment record, which indicates that X-rays of the wrist showed degenerative changes. [See Medical Treatment Record Non-Government Facility, Receipt date May 6, 2011]. (b) For each disorder identified or any functional impairment caused by pain, other than CTS, is it at least as likely as not that the disorder or functional impairment manifested in or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran's military service, to include any injury or symptomatology therein. (Continued on the next page) The examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should state this with a fully reasoned explanation. A complete rationale is required for all opinions, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Rebecca N. Poulson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Romero 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.