Citation Nr: 18160255 Decision Date: 12/26/18 Archive Date: 12/26/18 DOCKET NO. 15-12 170 DATE: December 26, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back disability, to include degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, (subsequently also claimed as degenerative joint disease, scoliosis, ankylosing spondylitis, and loss of inches in height), is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s back disability is etiologically related to her active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from February 1982 to February 1985. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2011 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Jackson, Mississippi. In April 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran filed a July 2018 claim for entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease, scoliosis, ankylosing spondylitis, and loss of 2 inches in height. In a December 2018 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim based on a finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted. The Board finds the December 2018 rating decision was premature, as the claim was already pending in appellate status and before the Board. Thus, the Board may proceed with appellate review. Service Connection – Back Disability The Veteran has claimed entitlement to service connection for a back disability. The Veteran maintains that she has a current back disability with symptomatology that began during active service. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that she sustained a back injury as the result of heavy lifting a heavy metal box full of sterile medical supplies. She reported that when she lifted the box and turned to her left, she heard a pop and felt a click in her back. She reported that she felt pain immediately, but that it did subside to a manageable level for a few days. She reported that shortly after the lifting injury, she was sitting in the mess hall with fellow service members when she sneezed suddenly, at which point her back froze and she couldn’t move her neck, her arms, or her legs. She reported that she was taken from the mess hall on a back board. She reported that she was in the hospital for several days receiving pain medication before ultimately returning to duty and fulfilling her commitment. The Veteran reported that she has continued to experience back pain since the in-service injury. The Veteran reported that following separation from service, she worked for many years as a nurse. As a result of her occupation, she reported she was able to get on the spot treatment and medication from doctors without having to attend medical appointments. She reported that she managed her pain with the on the spot treatment for many years before seeking actual documented medical treatment for her back pain. Service treatment records (STR) show that the Veteran was treated for back injury and pain during active service. In that regard, a December 1982 STR shows that the Veteran reported back pain from picking up a paint can incorrectly. Moreover, an October 1983 STR shows that the Veteran was treated for back pain. Regardless, the Veteran is competent to report when she first experienced symptoms of a back disability and that her symptoms have continued since service. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect. A review of the post-service evidence of record shows that the Veteran has complained of continuing back pain, beginning as early as March 1986, approximately 13 months following her separation from active service. She has received diagnoses of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, radiculopathy, spondylarthritis, spondylosis, and chronic pain, and has received continuing treatment since her separation from active service. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for her claimed back disability in September 2011. At that time, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s back disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the in-service injury reported. In that regard, the examiner opined that the back injuries in service were not severe enough to subsequently develop into disc disease and arthritis. The examiner also noted the “temporal gap of about 24 years between the initial injury and the recurrence of his low back pain in 2008.” The Board finds the VA medical opinion of record to be inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the examiner did not give appropriate consideration to the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of her symptoms. Moreover, the examiner relied on incorrect facts. Specifically, the examiner stated that the Veteran’s back injury did not manifest in low back pain until 24 years after separation from active service. However, of record is a March 1986 treatment record indicating the Veteran complained of, and was treated for back pain only 13 months after separation from active service. As the opinion is not adequate, it cannot serve as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, as noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify back pain, and her statements have been found credible. In sum, the Veteran, has competently and credibly reported that she had symptoms consistent with a back disability while she was in active service. Moreover, the Veteran’s STRs show complaints of, and treatment for a back injury. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of a back disability. There is no competent VA medical opinion against the claim of record. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a back disability is at least in equipoise and as such, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran. Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for a back disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mariah N. Sim, Associate Counsel