Citation Nr: 18110366 Decision Date: 06/12/18 Archive Date: 06/12/18 DOCKET NO. 14-25 480 DATE: June 12, 2018 ORDER Service connection for left shoulder arthritis is granted. FINDING OF FACT Pain in joint involving the left shoulder region had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Left shoulder arthritis was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154(a), 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 1973 to January 1997. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among many other decorations) the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal with four devices. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2010 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in November 2016. Service Connection Establishing direct service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the 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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the Veteran’s particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1376-77. Left Shoulder Disability The Veteran contends that his neck disability started while in service. Specifically, he contends that while in service, he was in a motorcycle accident that injured his left shoulder. See November 2016 Hearing Transcript. In this case, the evidence shows that the Veteran was involved in a motorcycle accident in August 1983, where he injured his left shoulder and wrist. See August 1983 Service Treatment Record. As a result of the accident, the Veteran’s left radius was casted for 4-6 weeks and the Veteran wore a sling. See March 1990 Service Treatment Records; November 2016 Hr’g Tr. pp. 2-5. The Veteran has a diagnosis of pain in joint involving shoulder region. See February 2013 VA Examination. The VA examiner documented degenerative or traumatic arthritis. Id. Further, the medical history reflects the Veteran had surgery on his left shoulder in 2009 and has chronic residuals consisting of severe painful motion and/or weakness. Id. The Veteran’s April 1990 Service Treatment Records shows the Veteran was under care for his shoulder, although the records don’t distinguish which shoulder. The Veteran competently testified that he did not have any problems with his shoulder prior to his motorcycle accident and service treatment records, prior to the accident, support that contention. See November 2016 Hr’g Tr. pp. 2-5; September 1981 Separation Examination. The Veteran further added, that as a result of the motorcycle accident in service, his arm was placed in a sling, he received treatment, including pain medication, and since that time he has had left shoulder pain. See November 2016 Hr’g Tr. at 5. The Board acknowledges that the February 2013, and June 2010 VA examiners provided negative nexus opinions. However, the Board finds the testimony of the Veteran regarding the onset of symptoms and his symptoms since service to be competent and credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). (Continued on the next page)   Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for left shoulder arthritis is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jacquelynn M. Jordan, Associate Counsel