Citation Nr: 18153785 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 15-06 384A DATE: November 28, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s cervical spine disability was not incurred as a result of military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from December 1962 to January 1965. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an April 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called “nexus” requirement. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran has a current cervical spine (neck) disability. As part of his February 2013 VA examination, review of the Veteran’s medical records reflected that he had been diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy in April 2005, and with degenerative disc disease and a C6-C7 disc herniation in 2002. Thus, the remaining question is whether the current neck disability is related to service. Service treatment records show no complaints, diagnosis, or treatment related to a neck injury or disability while the Veteran served in the Navy. The records do indicate that the Veteran struck his head on the deck in September 1964, and was treated for a 3-centimeter laceration to the eyebrow. During the January 1965 separation examination, evaluation of the neck, spine, and musculoskeletal system was normal. A neck disability is not shown by medical evidence until approximately November 2002, many years after the Veteran’s separation from service. Regarding onset of symptoms related to a neck disability, post-service the Veteran first reported in December 2002 having neck pain since pulling a muscle in November 2002. During VA treatment in February 2003, the Veteran again reported a history of neck pain since November 2002 when he had a sensation of a pulled muscle at the base of the neck. The Veteran presented for a VA examination in February 2013, at which time he was interviewed by the examiner who also reviewed the pertinent medical history and performed an examination. The examiner noted the diagnoses of herniated disc, cervical radiculopathy, and degenerative disc disease. The examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. In support of this conclusion, the examiner explained that there were no complaints of neck pain at time of the injury in service, no neck complaints after service until approximately 2000, and no evidence of neck problems until approximately 2000. Further, the examiner noted that the service treatment records are void of any neck condition. The examiner stated that while the Veteran’s current neck condition is most certainly significant, it is not related to his service. The Board notes that an opinion is considered probative if it is definitive and supported by detailed rationale. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Board finds the VA examiner’s opinion highly probative as it was made by a trained medical professional based on appropriate diagnostic testing and reasonably drawn conclusions with supportive rationale and consideration of the specific facts in this case. Other evidence is consistent with and supports the examiner’s opinion. For example, the service treatment records indicate no neck injury or abnormalities upon release from active duty, and post-service records indicate no treatment for neck pain until November 2002. A June 2013 VA treatment record notes the Veteran’s report that he started having headaches and neck pain while serving on a Navy ship when he had a serious fall while carrying milk containers. In August 2013, a VA hematologist/oncologist opined that the Veteran’s degenerative changes caused serious headaches and “other problems” and stated that “in my opinion these changes have been present for many many (sic) and probably up to an extreme number of years and more likely than not are linked to neck whiplash injury on (the ship upon which the Veteran served).” The Veteran provided a statement dated in June 2013 from a private acupuncturist and chiropractic orthopedist who opined that the Veteran’s condition “more likely than not stem from the injuries sustained in the military accident on board U.S. Navy Ship” and that “this is a very old and progressive injury to the neck area.” The June and August 2013 opinions are afforded less probative weight than the VA examiner’s opinion. Specifically, while linking the current neck disability to service neither clinician provided a rationale for the conclusion other than to state the disability is old and that the Veteran had some type of accident in service. The Board notes that there is no documented whiplash injury noted in the service treatment records. The August 2013 opinion is based at least in part on such an injury. Rather, the service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was treated for a laceration to his eyebrow from falling on the deck in September 1964. Moreover, neither of the clinicians providing positive opinions acknowledge, let alone explain the significance of, the lack of a documented neck injury or complaint during service, to include at the time of the alleged injury, or the normal evaluation of the neck, spine, and musculoskeletal system at the time of separation. There is also no discussion regarding the significant period of time, more than 35 years, without documented complaint or treatment for a neck problem. To the extent the clinicians are relying on the Veteran’s reports of having neck pain since service, the Board finds those statements to lack credibility. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements, to include his assertions in June 2013 that symptoms began during service. As the Veteran is not shown to have medical education or experience, he is a lay person and is competent to report (1) symptoms that are observable to a layperson, e.g., pain; (2) symptoms at the time supporting a later diagnosis by a medical professional; or (3) a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (2009). The Veteran is not competent to independently render a medical diagnosis or opine as to the specific etiology of a condition as these are medically complex issues. Thus, his lay assertions do not constitute evidence upon which service connection can be granted. Moreover, the Veteran’s current report of neck pain onset during service are found to lack credibility as they are in conflict with other more probative evidence. Specifically, the Veteran did not report any neck injury or complaints during service and had normal relevant evaluations at separation. There is no documented treatment regarding the neck for decades and when the Veteran does finally seek treatment he on multiple occasions dates the onset of symptoms to November 2002, decades after his service. The statements and findings more contemporaneous to service are found to be more probative as they were made in connection with treating or identifying disability and were made closer in time to the period at issue. By contrast, the report in July 2013 was made shortly after the Veteran filed a claim for compensation benefits from VA. For the above reasons, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and service connection is denied. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Ruben D. Rudolph, Jr., Associate Counsel