Citation Nr: 18159474 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/19/18 DOCKET NO. 16-62 083 DATE: December 19, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a lower back condition is denied. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a lower back condition due to a disease or injury in service, to include specific in-service event, injury, or disease. 2. The Veteran’s tinnitus is related to in service exposure to loud noise from aircraft engines. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a lower back condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 2. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served honorably from December 1975 to November 1978. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from October 2015 and October 2014 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 1. Service connection for a lower back condition The Veteran contends that while in he was leaving Barksdale Air Force base on a motorcycle, he was involved in an accident where he flipped the motorcycle while coming to a stop. He contends he went over the handlebars, and was knocked unconscious. He says he awoke, and was taken to the hospital on the base by a passerby. According to the service treatment records from 1978, the Veteran came in two days after the accident with right shoulder pain. At the time of the accident, the records indicate a complaint of back pain. The Veteran was given an x-ray on August 28, 1978 and the results were normal. The Veteran was treated for a wound on his arm. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a lower back condition, degenerative joint disease (DJD), and evidence shows that the motorcycle accident occurred, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s diagnosis of a lower back condition began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). VA treatment records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with a lower back condition, DJD, until 2011, over three decades after his separation from service. While the Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of back pain intermittently since service, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of DJD caused by the accident in 1978. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, the November 2016 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s lower back condition is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including from the motorcycle accident. The rationale was that the Veteran’s x-ray results after the accident were normal, and the Veteran was only treated for a minor wound on his arm. The VA examiner opined that because the complaints of back pain did not continue until 30 years after the accident, there is no nexus between the accident and his current condition. Further, the examiner determined that age is the greatest factor contributing to the Veteran’s DJD. The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). There is no nexus between the currently diagnosed lower back disorder and the motorcycle accident that occurred in service, and for this reason, the Board finds that service connection is denied. 2. Service connection for tinnitus The Veteran contends that while in service, he worked on power and telephone lines around the Barksdale Air Force base. During his time on this duty, jet planes would roar above him as he worked without ear protection. He said he was exposed to plane engines being started up several times a day. The Veteran contends that he suffers from tinnitus due to this exposure to acoustic trauma in service. The claims folder reflects that during service, the Veteran served as a field wireman. The Veteran has consistently stated that he first experienced ringing in his ears during service, and the VA has conceded noise exposure, according to the June 2017 Statement of the Case. The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that tinnitus is a disease, rather than merely a symptom, and that 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) include tinnitus, at a minimum where there is evidence of acoustic trauma, as an organic disease of the nervous system. Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 273 (2015). In light of the Veteran’s confirmed in-service incurrence of noise exposure, and his credible and competent statements in support of the claim for tinnitus, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise regarding service connection for tinnitus and will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 ; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Accordingly, service connection for tinnitus is granted. M. H. Hawley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Kelly, Associate Counsel