Citation Nr: 18151445 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/19/18 DOCKET NO. 05-15 775 DATE: November 20, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a right shoulder disorder is granted. Service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremity is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A preponderance of the medical evidence shows that the Veteran has a current right shoulder disorder which had its onset in service and has continued since service. 2. The available medical evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran has, or at any pertinent point during the current appeal period has had, a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremity. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for the right shoulder disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 2. The criteria for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1992 through September 2003. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued in January and April 2004 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia. On his substantive appeal forms, the Veteran indicated that he desired a Board hearing. A December 2008 letter from the RO notified him that the requested hearing had been scheduled for a date in March 2009. The Veteran failed to appear for his scheduled hearing. As the claims file does not reflect that the letter was returned as undeliverable, and the Veteran has not requested that the hearing be rescheduled, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.702. This case was previously before the Board in April 2009 at which time the above issues were remanded for additional development. Legal Criteria To establish service connection for a claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and current disability. 38 U.S.C. § 3.303 (2017); See also, Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Analysis The Veteran is seeking service connection for a right shoulder condition and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, which the evidence suggests that he contends are conditions related to an in-service event or incurrence. 1. Right shoulder condition Initially, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current right shoulder disorder. While some of the medical evidence during the course of the appeal suggests that the Veteran does not have a current right shoulder disorder, the most recent VA shoulder examination in March 2017 shows diagnoses of right shoulder strain (noting an onset in 2002) as well as subacromial/subdeltoid bursitis of the right shoulder (noting an onset in 2003). Furthermore, the Veteran has consistently complained of pain in his right shoulder during the appeal period. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran has a currently diagnosed right shoulder disorder and that this condition has existed throughout the appeal period. The Board also finds that there is evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury. Specifically, service treatment records show complaints of right shoulder pain in August 1996, January 2002, January 2003, June 2003. Subsequent medical records indicated that the Veteran injured his right shoulder in 2002 when he was changing a tire and a truck fell on him. See VA Examination Report, January 2015; see also, VA Examination Report, November 2004. Given the above, the Board finds an occurrence of an in-service event and thus finds that the second element for service connection is met. Turning to a nexus, the Board finds that a nexus is apparent given the Veteran’s competent and credible lay statement regarding his symptomatology. The Veteran is competent to report symptom onset and any challenges he experiences as a result of pain felt in his right shoulder. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s recollection of his in-service event and the Veteran’s statements that the pain in his right shoulder has continued intermittently since service. See VA Examination Report, January 2015. The Veteran’s statements are entitled to probative weight, as they are internally consistent and consistent amongst other medical evidence where the Veteran describes the same set of symptoms to VA examiners. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board finds that there is evidence of a link between the Veteran’s right shoulder injury and the noted in-service event to which caused the Veteran’s injury. For the reasons and bases set forth above, the weight of the lay and medical evidence is in equipoise and service connection for the Veteran’s right shoulder condition is warranted. As such, the benefit of the doubt doctrine was appropriated, and the claim must be granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 2. Peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities The Board finds that service connection is not warranted for the Veteran’s claim for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. While the Veteran has been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity secondary to his service-connected spinal fusion at C6-7 with residual headaches, he has not been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. Significantly, a January 2015 VA peripheral nerves examination is negative for a peripheral nerve condition or neuropathy of the lower extremities and showed no symptoms of this condition. According to the examiner’s observations, the Veteran reported no flare ups, no functional loss or impairment and no degenerative arthritis in either of his lower extremities. See VA Examination Report, January 2015. Additionally, the Veteran’s right and left sciatic nerves appeared “normal” upon observation. See VA Examination Report, January 2015. Additionally, the records indicate that the Veteran states that he was unaware of any claim for this condition and also denied having any such disability. See VA Examination Report, January 2015. Given the aforementioned, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy. While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education/knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body/the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. As the evidence is not in relative equipoise, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. APRIL MADDOX Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Jones, Associate Counsel