Citation Nr: 18157079 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 15-12 282 DATE: December 11, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a lower back disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a hip disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is no competent evidence of a nexus between the Veteran’s current left shoulder disability and any in-service event. 2. There is no competent evidence that the Veteran currently suffers from a hip disability. 3. There is no competent evidence that the Veteran currently suffers from a left knee disability. 4. There is no competent evidence that the Veteran currently suffers from a right knee disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a left shoulder disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1131, 1153, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 2. The criteria for service connection for a hip disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1131, 1153, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 3. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1131, 1153, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 4. The criteria for service connection for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1131, 1153, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the United States Army from January 1977 to December 1984. The Veteran was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal and Parachutist Badge, among other decorations. The Veteran appeals his Rating Decision from January 2014 from San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Veteran originally requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge on his April 2015 substantive appeal; in April 2016, he withdrew his hearing request. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to notify and assist Veterans in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102 and 5103 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, and 3.326(a) (2018). VA has complied with the duty to assist in this case. The Veteran has not raised any procedural arguments regarding the notice or assistance provided. Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Service Connection Generally service connection will exist if a veteran can show that he have a current disability, that he suffered an in-service injury or disease, and that the current disability or disease is somehow related to that in-service injury. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Compensation will be paid to eligible Veterans who are disabled by an injury or illness that was incurred or aggravated during active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1153(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (addressing lay evidence as potentially competent to support presence of disability even where not corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has clarified that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis or etiology when (1) a lay person is competent to identify a medical condition; (2) the lay person is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is denied. The first requirement for service connection is that the Veteran must have a current disability. Here, the Veteran was diagnosed with a current shoulder condition, a left shoulder calcific tendinitis, in a VA Examination from August 2013. As such, the first requirement is met. The second requirement for service connection is that the Veteran must have suffered in-service from an injury, a disease, or event. Here, the Veteran’s service treatment records are silent with regards to any left shoulder injury, disease, or event. However, the Veteran claims in a VA Examination from August 2013 that he must have injured his shoulder due to all of the hard work he did as an infantryman. The Veteran noted that he would often have to carry a machine gun and its tripod in addition to his rucksack. The Veteran is competent to state that he experienced an event or an injury in service. In the instance, the Veteran is competent to report that he suffered a left shoulder injury during service due to his carrying of equipment. As such, the second requirement is met. The final requirement for service connection is that a nexus exists between the Veteran’s current disability and the Veteran’s in-service injury, disease, or event. The Veteran underwent a VA Examination in August 2013; the examiner there concluded that it was not as least as likely as not that the Veteran’s left shoulder disability incurred or was caused by any in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner noted that the Veteran stated that his injury must have arisen from service since he was made to carry heavy equipment during his military service. However, the examiner noted that the Veteran did not have any complaints about his left shoulder while in-service nor did he have any complaints during the twenty years since he left service. There is no other support for the Veteran’s contention that his left shoulder injury throughout the record. Since there is no competent evidence of a connection between the Veteran’s current left shoulder disability and an injury to the left shoulder during the Veteran’s service, the third requirement is not met. As such, the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection is not warranted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a hip disability is denied. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is denied. The first requirement for service connection is that the Veteran must have a current disability. For each of these claims, there is no competent evidence that the Veteran has been diagnosed as suffering from hip, left knee, or right knee disabilities. A review of the Veteran’s post-service VA treatment records shows no complaints of or treatment for any of these claimed conditions. The Veteran himself has not stated that he is diagnosed as suffering from any particular hip, left knee, or right knee disabilities, nor has he provided any information regarding functional impact resulting from his claimed conditions. Absent such diagnoses or evidence of functional impact, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis for a current hip, left knee, or right knee disability. The first requirement for service connection for the Veteran’s hip condition is not met, and the Veteran’s claims must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. An October 2010 VA treatment X-ray reflects that the Veteran was then diagnosed as suffering from “degenerative disc intervertebral osteochondrosis” at the L4/S1 level. The Veteran subsequently complained of back pain. The Veteran further contended that his back disability is related to his in-service duties as a paratrooper. Considering that the Veteran has a current disability, and that his service records indicate that he earned the Parachutist Badge, the Board finds that his contention that his back disability is related to service requires a remand for a VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination to determine whether any current back disability is related to his active service. After examining the Veteran, the examiner is to state whether it is at least as likely as not that any identified low back disability had its onset during or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s active service, to include his service as a paratrooper. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. N. P. Jochem, Associate Counsel