Citation Nr: 18151198 Decision Date: 11/16/18 Archive Date: 11/16/18 DOCKET NO. 15-07 609 DATE: November 16, 2018 ORDER Service connection for osteoarthritis, to include as secondary to service-connected fibromyalgia, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence supports a finding that the Veteran’s osteoarthritis is related to his service-connected fibromyalgia. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for osteoarthritis, to include as secondary to service-connected fibromyalgia, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1953 to May 1957 and from June 1957 to July 1966. This matter come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina. The Veteran was scheduled for a Board hearing in July 2018. The RO attempted to reach him by telephone to confirm his attendance, but was unable to do so, and the Veteran did not appear. As such, there are no pending hearing requests. Legal Criteria Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, to establish service connection for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in service, there must be (1) competent evidence of the current existence of the disability for which service connection is being claimed; (2) competent evidence of incurrence of a disease or injury in active service; and (3) competent evidence of a nexus or connection between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred in service. Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 236 (2010); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2009); cf. Gutierrez v. Principi, 19 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2004) (citing Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999)). In addition, service connection is also warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a disability is proximately due to or the result of a service connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3. 310(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Analysis The Veteran contends that his osteoarthritis is related to his service-connected fibromyalgia. A review of the record shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with multi-site osteoarthritis at a VA hospital as early as June 1998. In June 2012, the Veteran’s primary care physician, Dr. S. T., submitted correspondence indicating that the Veteran had been under his care since January 2012. He reviewed the Veteran’s medical history and determined that the Veteran’s osteoarthritis was caused by his fibromyalgia. Dr. S. T. submitted follow-up correspondence in June 2013 and indicated that, although they have similar symptoms, fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis are separate diseases. He first indicated that they have separate ICD (international classification of diseases) codes. Then, Dr. S. T. indicated that osteoarthritis was a degenerative joint disease which caused pain and stiffness, whereas fibromyalgia was a chronic condition that caused widespread pain, fatigue, anxiety, and sometimes depression. Fibromyalgia caused muscle and ligament pain all over, whereas osteoarthritis was more localized to specific areas and their joints. (Continued on the next page)   The Board finds Dr. S. T.’s opinions highly probative and concludes that service connection for osteoarthritis is warranted. The examiner considered the Veteran’s history and in-service experiences, and provided a thorough rationale for his conclusions. In so reaching that conclusion, the Board has appropriately applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine in this case. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). APRIL MADDOX Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Daniels, Associate Counsel