BVA Case 24-6361: Back

The Board noted that the RO had not afforded the veteran a medical examination to determine whether his bilateral hand osteoarthritis was related to service,but the Board found no examinationrequiredbecause there is no indication of an in-service event,injury, or disease.

The Board found the appellant competent and credible in reporting symptoms of pain associated with his hands,but the Board noted that the appellant had neither asserted that his bilateral hand osteoarthritis began during or was otherwise related to service,nor specifically alleged an in-service event or injury which could serve as the origin of his right-or left-hand osteoarthritis.

And the Board found that service treatment records lacked complaints of or treatment for a bilateral hand disability,including osteoarthritis.

Further,the Board found no medical opinion associating the appellant's bilateral hand osteoarthritis with service.

The Board found the appellant's bare claim of entitlement the only evidence of a medical nexus between the appellant's current osteoarthritis and active-duty service,and the Board found the appellant was not a medical professional who could diagnose osteoarthritis.

The Board concluded that neither the appellant,nor the record have [sic] suggested an origin of the appellant's claimed bilateral hand osteoarthritis as related to service.

Schiro argues that the Board erred in assessing service connection under a causation standard stricter than but-for causation.

Alternatively,he argues that because the Board failed to address his argument that the but-for legal standard governs service connection,the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for finding that the RO had not erred in failingto provide a predecisional medical examination.