Citation Nr: 22019496 Decision Date: 04/01/22 Archive Date: 04/01/22 DOCKET NO. 17-55 701 DATE: April 1, 2022 ORDER New and material evidence having been presented, reopening of the claim for service connection for a left wrist disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability is granted. INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from July 1985 to July 1989. The Veteran previously submitted a claim for entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability, which was denied in a September 2014 rating decision on the basis that a current disability was not shown at that time. That decision became final because the Veteran did not timely appeal the claim within the appeal period. In connection with the Veteran's claim to reopen, he submitted private treatment records indicating he is being treated for left wrist tendonitis. Thus, the Board finds sufficient new and material evidence has been received to reopen his previously denied claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a); Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117-18 (2010); Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's left wrist disability is etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left wrist disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Factual Background and Analysis The Veteran seeks service connection for a left wrist disability, which he contends originated in service. The medical evidence confirms the Veteran currently has chronic left wrist pain with tendonitis, with resulting functional impairments. These include limitations in his ability to grasp, grip, push, pull, and lift objects. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Additionally, the evidence indicates the Veteran was involved in a motor vehicle accident in service and was subsequently treated for left wrist tendonitis in September and October 1987. The central issue that must be resolved at this time is whether the Veteran's current disability originated during service or is otherwise related to service. By way of an August 2014 VA examination the Veteran was noted to have left wrist pain and weakness. The examiner found the Veteran's left wrist manifestations resulted from his MVA in service. The Veteran provided a disability questionnaire which was completed by his private physician in December 2017. At that time, the clinician found he warranted a diagnosis of left wrist tendonitis, the same diagnosis which was rendered in service. The clinician again noted the Veteran's wrist pain and weakness, as well as functional limitations. The Veteran underwent a second VA examination in March 2018, at which time he was again diagnosed with inflammatory tenosynovitis. Though the examiner subsequently found the Veteran's left wrist disability was less likely than not caused by his service-connected left elbow disability, he failed to state whether the disability was directly incurred in service. In this respect, the examiner erroneously found no evidence of treatment for a left wrist disability in service. As noted above, the Veteran was indeed treated for left wrist tendonitis in service. An opinion based upon an inaccurate factual premise has no probative value. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). Both the Veteran and his spouse have chronicled his ongoing wrist pain and weakness, which has persisted since service. In this case, the Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a 3-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a "competent" source. The Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (Observing that once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible). The third step of this inquiry requires the Board to weigh the probative value of the proffered evidence in light of the entirety of the record. The Board also notes that under certain circumstances, lay evidence may be sufficient to establish a nexus. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Lay evidence has been found to be competent with regard to a disease that has "unique and readily identifiable features" that are "capable of lay observation." See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308-09 (2007); see also Petitti v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 415, 427-28 (2015) (where the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims found objective evidence of pain need not come from a medical professional; a lay person may provide the requisite confirmation). Here, the Veteran has reported that he experienced left wrist pain and weakness following his MVA in service, which has persisted ever since. The Board finds the Veteran competent to report his experiences of pain and weakness. It is generally within the competence of a lay person to identify and observe the effect of a disability under the ordinary conditions of daily life. Many symptoms are readily observable by a lay person. Accordingly, the lay evidence provided by the Veteran is unquestionably competent evidence. As previously noted, this appeal turns on whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's current disabilities and his injuries in service. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported that he experienced wrist pain and weakness during and since service. Additionally, the medical records indicate the Veteran has been consistently diagnosed with the same disability, left wrist tendonitis, since his initial injury in service. Accordingly, a nexus to service is established. In sum, the Board is satisfied that the evidence supporting a nexus between the Veteran's currently diagnosed disability and his in-service injury is in approximate balance with the evidence against a nexus. Therefore, the Veteran is entitled to service connection for his left wrist disability. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Fraser, 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.