Citation Nr: 20008282 Decision Date: 01/31/20 Archive Date: 01/30/20 DOCKET NO. 16-26 316 DATE: January 31, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s current lower back disability had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a low back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1978 to April 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in January 2020. Entitlement to service connection for a lower back disability. The Board finds that service connection for a lower back disability is warranted. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Even in the absence of a diagnosed disability, evidence of functional limitations due to symptoms can meet this requirement. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Specifically, in Saunders v. Wilkie, the Federal Circuit found that the term “disability,” as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110, refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability, and held that pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability. In this case, the evidence shows that the Veteran has experienced pain and cannot sit or walk for long periods of time. See form 9, June 2016; see also Hearing Transcript, January 2020. The Veteran stated that these symptoms limit his ability to perform activities of daily living and weigh on his emotional status. See Form 9, June 2016. Given the functional impairment imposed by the Veteran’s lower back condition, the requirement for service connection that a current disability be present is satisfied. See Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1356. The in-service injury requirement is also satisfied as the Veteran’s reported in-service injury, a car accident, is noted in his service treatment records. The records show that during service he experienced intermittent back pain secondary to a car accident in 1979. Further, the Veteran’s separation examination noted recurrent back pain. See Service Treatment Record, September 1982. As to a nexus between the Veteran’s current lower back disability and in-service injury, the Veteran testified that he has experienced persistent symptoms since service. See Board Transcript, January 2020. Despite the fact that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination, the Board finds that the competent, credible evidence of lower back pain in and since service satisfies the nexus element of service connection. See Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1367 (explaining that lay evidence may be sufficient to establish each element of service connection). Additionally, the Veteran’s sister, a certified rehabilitation nurse, testified during the hearing that she witnessed the Veteran suffering from back pain since his time in service. She also provided an opinion that the Veteran’s back problem stems directly from the in-service trauma caused by the car accident. Collectively, the evidence indicates that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s functional disability of the lower back had its onset in service. In sum, all three elements necessary to establish service connection have been met. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Leigh, Attorney Advisor 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.