Citation Nr: 20003528 Decision Date: 01/15/20 Archive Date: 01/15/20 DOCKET NO. 17-61 612 DATE: January 15, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical disorder to include degenerative joint disease and cervical radiculopathy is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether current cervical degenerative joint disease with cervical radiculopathy is related to active service or events therein. CONCLUSION OF LAW Cervical degenerative joint disease with cervical radiculopathy was incurred during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1982 to November 2003. In November 2019, a videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Service connection Cervical disorder to include degenerative joint disease and cervical radiculopathy In October 2014, VA denied entitlement to service connection for cervical spine degenerative joint disease with cervical radiculopathy. The Veteran disagreed with the decision and perfected this appeal. In a July 2015 statement, the Veteran reported that his neck pain began following a parachute jump at airborne school in April 2001. He reported landing on uneven ground and striking the ground so hard that his helmet tore into his scalp. The Veteran states that a field medic dressed the wound and gave him Motrin for pain. The appellant further states that over the next three months he averaged one jump every three weeks, and in June 2001, he wrenched his neck to the point where he could not turn his head to the left. He continued to self-medicate and went to the flight doctor who just increased his pain medication. He reported that prior to static line jumps he never had any problems with his neck. He further stated that his neck pain did not resolve during service but continued. The Veteran provided similar testimony at the November 2019 hearing. He stated that his physician told him this was a textbook version of neck injury commonly seen with paratroopers. His representative argued that there were competing medical opinions and that the statement from his treating physician, a neurosurgeon, should be afforded greater weight. Regardless, the representative argued that the evidence was at least in equipoise and that reasonable doubt should be resolved in the Veteran’s favor. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service treatment records show that on examination for enlistment in October 1981, the Veteran’s spine was reported as normal and no abnormalities of the cervical spine were noted. The Veteran was seen in June 2001 with complaints of neck pain for two weeks secondary to a jump. The assessment was a cervical strain. Further cervical spine complaints are not documented in the service treatment records. The evidence of record shows a current cervical spine disability, namely cervical degenerative joint disease with cervical radiculopathy. The Veteran underwent a cervical 6-7 anterior discectomy and fusion in July 2014. As set forth, there is evidence of inservice injury and a current diagnosis. The question for the Board is nexus. In September 2014, a VA physician opined that the Veteran’s current cervical spine condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed inservice injury. The examiner noted that although the Veteran sustained a cervical sprain on active duty, it resolved, and the medical record was quiet with no other complaints of neck pain until 2014. The examiner observed that the most common cause of cervical degenerative disc disease is degeneration due to age. The examiner opined that there was no clear medical evidence supporting a causal relationship between one or several limited episodes of a cervical sprain and the eventual development of cervical degenerative joint disease or cervical radiculopathy. In April 2015, the Veteran was seen by his neurosurgeon at a military treatment facility. The noted history indicates that symptoms may be related to military duties, including prior hard parachute landings and other rigors of military life. The assessment was multilevel cervical spondylosis, longstanding and likely present to a lesser degree while on active duty based on prior reports of needing treatment for neck pain. Progression of the condition prompted surgical intervention. The Veteran clearly suffered an inservice neck injury and he is competent to report continuing symptoms of neck pain. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a lay person is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). His reports of continuing symptoms and self-medication with Motrin appear entirely consistent with the circumstances of his service and the Board has no reason to doubt his credibility in this matter. As set forth, the record contains opinions both for and against the claim. That is, the VA examiner provided a negative opinion, whereas the Veteran’s neurosurgeon stated the condition was likely present during his period of active duty. The Board finds no reason to favor one opinion over the other and thus, the evidence is at least in equipoise. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, service connection is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014) ("By requiring only an 'approximate balance of positive and negative evidence' . . ., the nation, 'in recognition of our debt to our veterans,' has 'taken upon itself the risk of error' in awarding . . . benefits."). DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Carsten, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.