Citation Nr: 18154546 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-44 219 DATE: November 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for back disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for neck disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s back disability, including any degenerative disc disease or cervical stenosis, did not have its onset during active service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service, and is not otherwise causally related to active service. 2. The Veteran’s neck disability, including any degenerative disc disease or cervical stenosis, did not have its onset during active service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service, and is not otherwise causally related to active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107 (2012), 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.306, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for neck disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107 (2012), 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.306, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the Coast Guard from February 1968 to February 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an April 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See U.S.C. §§ 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2017). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service occurrence 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. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). When there is an approximate balance in the evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, reasonable doubt will be resolved in each such issue in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. §5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §3.102 (2017). An appellant need only demonstrate that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence in order to prevail. To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must be preponderate against the claim. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Entitlement to service connection for back disability and neck disabilities The Veteran alleges that he has a back disability and a neck disability in the form of multilevel degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine and lumbar stenosis. The Veteran claims that he sustained an injury in a September 1970 car accident which has caused his back and neck disabilities. After careful review of the record, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim. Specifically, the Board finds that the Veteran’s back and neck disabilities did not manifest in service, within one year of service, and there is no evidence of a nexus between the Veteran’s claimed in-service injury and his back and neck disabilities. The Veteran’s military personnel records indicate that he was on sick leave during the time of the alleged car accident. However, his service treatment records (STRs) do not illustrate complaints or treatment of a back or neck injury. His discharge VA medical exam is likewise completely silent of any back or neck injury. Therefore, the Veteran’s back and neck disabilities did not have their onset during service. The record also shows that the back and neck disabilities did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service separation. Private medical records, including an MRI of the Veteran’s spine showing degenerative disc changes date August 2015, almost 45 years after the alleged incident. There are no other medical records or VA treatment records illustrating complaints or treatment for a back or neck disability between the 1970 car accident and August 2015 MRI records. In March 2016, the Veteran’s private doctor completed a back conditions disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ). The DBQ confirmed that the Veteran has degenerative disc disease C3-C6 and lumbar strain. The date of diagnosis was listed as March 2016. The DBQ lists prior motor vehicle accident in the 1960’s as history of the Veteran’s spinal history. The Veteran submitted three buddy statements from individuals confirming the car accident he was involved in. A statement dating March 2016 from J. S., the Veteran’s friend who was also involved in the accident, confirms that the accident happened, describes the Veteran having a steering wheel wrapped around his neck, describes the Veteran’s and J.S. seeing a private doctor, and being told that they seem ok and would be sore for a couple of days. A lay statement dated February 2016 from S.A., a neighbor witnessing the accident, describes the accident, the Veteran having a steering wheel around his neck, the Veteran’s refusing his neighbor placing an ambulance call, and states that the Veteran sustained a neck injury. The third lay statement dated January 2016 is from D.B., the Veteran’s brother. The statement confirms the accident occurred, states that the Veteran was rubbing his neck on the scene, that the Veteran refused to go to the hospital, and having his mother claim that she would take care of it. While the lay statements confirm the accident, none of the individuals possess the necessary medical training and knowledge to adequately attest to the Veteran having a current back or neck disability caused by that injury. As such, the Board cannot give these statements probative weight as to the nexus element. In summary, the Board finds that the most probative evidence shows that the Veteran’s back and neck disabilities did not have their inception during the Veteran’s active service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation, and are not causally related to or aggravated by his service. With respect to the alleged 1970 car accident sustained during service, there is no continuity of symptomatology and no evidence that any potential injury sustained during that accident relates to the 2015 diagnosis of the Veteran’s back and neck disabilities. While the March 2016 DBQ refers to a motor vehicle accident in the 1960’s in conjunction with his current disabilities, the examiner provided no rationale for this conclusion, which appears to be solely based on the Veteran’s self-reported history. However, there is no evidence of continuity of symptoms since service to support that assertion. While the Veteran sincerely believes that his current back and neck disabilities were caused by the in-service motor vehicle accident, his opinion in this regard is not competent, as the Veteran is not shown to possess the requisite medical expertise necessary to provide a competent opinion as to causation, where, as here, the medical diagnosis and etiology are not capable of lay observation. For these reasons, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. 38 U.S.C. §5107(b) (2017); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. at 53. L. B. CRYAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Kuksova, Associate Counsel