Citation Nr: 18144397 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/24/18 DOCKET NO. 16-22 961 DATE: October 25, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, to include as secondary to a service-connected left shoulder disability, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s right shoulder disability is proximately due to his service-connected left shoulder disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for secondary service connection for a right shoulder disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1983 to August 1990; from October 1990 to February 1991; from October 25, 2001 to October 27, 2001; from July 2004 to May 2006; from April 2007 to December 2008; from June 2009 to July 2009; from October 5, 2009 to October 26, 2009; from April 2010 to September 2010; and from March 2011 to November 2013. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newnan, Georgia. Although the RO considered the August 2015 rating decision as the proper decision on appeal, the Board finds that the current appeal stems from the May 2015 rating decision. The Veteran’s claim of service connection for a right shoulder disability was originally denied in a May 2015 rating decision. In June 2015, the Veteran requested a reconsideration of the May 2015 denial of service connection. The RO again denied service connection for a right shoulder disability in an August 2015 rating decision. Thereafter, in September 2015, the Veteran filed an adequate Notice of Disagreement (NOD) as to the denial of service connection for the claimed right shoulder disability. The September 2015 NOD was documented in the appropriate VA form and filed within a year from the May 2015 rating decision. Thus, the May 2015 rating decision did not become final. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.201, 20.302. In April 2018, the Veteran’s representative submitted a request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The record does not reflect that this request has been addressed by the RO to date. However, the benefit sought by the Veteran is being granted in full herein; as such, the Board finds there is no prejudice from adjudicating the matter at this time. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran seeks service connection for a right shoulder disability, which he contends is related to his active military service. Specifically, he alleges his right shoulder disability is the result of his service-connected left shoulder disability, noting that he overused his right shoulder to compensate for his service-connected left shoulder. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Alternatively, service connection may be granted on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of (caused) or permanently worsened beyond its natural progression (aggravated) by a service-connected disease or injury. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448-49 (1995) (en banc); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. At the outset, the Board notes the Veteran’s current disability and service connection for a left shoulder disability are uncontroverted. The medical evidence of record, including the April 2015 and January 2018 VA examination reports, reflect a diagnosis of right shoulder glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis. Further, service connection for the Veteran’s left shoulder disability was granted by the way of an August 2013 rating decision. Therefore, the Veteran’s appeal hinges on whether there is a nexus between the claimed right shoulder disability and his service-connected left shoulder disability. In a letter received in June 2015, Dr. R.H., a private physician who treated the Veteran from 1991 to 1997, stated the Veteran had arthroscopic surgery on his right shoulder approximately in 1995. Further, Dr. R.H. opined the Veteran’s present condition of right shoulder osteoarthritis was secondary to a surgery he had during service and working out to meet the push-up requirements of the Air Force Physical Testing program. In this regard, the Board observes the medical evidence of record indicates the Veteran had left shoulder distal clavicle arthroscopy and bicep tendon repair approximately in 1991. The Veteran underwent a VA shoulder examination in January 2018, where his diagnosis of right shoulder glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis was confirmed. The VA examiner opined the Veteran’s right shoulder disability was at least as likely as not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected left shoulder disability. As rationale for this opinion, the examiner indicated the Veteran’s left shoulder disability and treatment, including a September 2013 left shoulder arthroscopic surgery, caused overuse to the right shoulder, which resulted in sharp pain with stiffness in the right shoulder. Upon a review of the record and having resolved all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds service connection is warranted for the Veteran’s right shoulder disability. The Board acknowledges the VA opinion issued in April 2015, in which the examiner stated that the Veteran’ s right shoulder disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. However, the Board finds this opinion to be of limited probative value, as the examiner did not opine as to whether the Veteran’s right shoulder disability was caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. Further, the April 2015 VA opinion is outweighed by the overall evidence of record including the above-discussed medical evidence, which was received after this opinion was issued. In sum, the Board finds that the evidence in favor and against the Veteran’s claim is at least in equipoise, and as such, service connection for the Veteran’s right shoulder disability is granted. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Martinez, Associate Counsel