Citation Nr: 20021356 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 18-32 663 DATE: March 25, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a low back injury is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s low back condition arose during or as a result of his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a low back injury have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from January 1981 to September 1985. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was remanded by the Board in June 2019 for an additional VA examination. The Board finds that the RO substantially complied with these instructions, and the Board may now proceed with adjudication. Also, the Veteran’s prior representative withdrew during the pendency of this appeal, in January 2019. 1. Entitlement to service connection for low back injury The Veteran asserts that he suffers from a low back condition as a result of his active service. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. “To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: “(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service”-the so-called “nexus” requirement.” Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In this case, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STR) are negative for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for lower back conditions or injuries. Notably, the Veteran’s February 1985 Medical Examination and Report of Medical History are both negative for lower back complaints or treatment. The Veteran’s post-service VA and private treatment records are negative for evidence of complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of lower back conditions or injuries in the 12-month period immediately following discharge from active service or for medical opinions tying the Veteran’s condition to his active service. During the Veteran’s January 2020 VA examination for back conditions, the VA examiner stated that the Veteran was positive for degenerative arthritis of the spine and intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS), and the examiner appeared to indicate that these conditions were diagnosed in 1983, checking off boxes in the questionnaire in this regard. This date of diagnosis appears to be based on the Veteran’s reports as to his reported in-service injury, thoroughly described in the following medical history section of the examination report. No further medical opinion or rationale is provided, however. In a later January 2020 VA medical opinion, a different examiner reviewed the claims file and opined that the Veteran’s lower back conditions were less likely than not to have arisen during or as a result of his active service. The examiner’s rationale was based on the explicitly negative findings or reports of back pain in the Veteran’s STRs as well as the over 20-year gap between the Veteran leaving service and his first treatment records for back conditions. Additionally, the examiner stated that if the Veteran’s degenerative changes from wear and tear had started in 1981-1985, it would be expected to show a more significant finding on imaging than mild changes more than 30 years later. No traumatic changes were noted. The Veteran has consistently asserted that his back pain began after an in-service injury. See January 2018 Notice of Disagreement (NOD); May 2017 statement in support of claim. In considering the Veteran’s contentions, the Board notes that he is competent to observe lay symptoms but does not have the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to etiology, diagnosis, or the onset date of a medical disability. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). His lay contentions are thus of markedly lower probative value than, and are outweighed by, the January 2020 VA examination opinion and medical evidence of record. Here, the Board is aware of the January 2020 VA examination report indicating a low back disability beginning in 1983. This statement appears to have been based entirely on the Veteran’s lay reports, and no further rationale is provided. By contrast, the later January 2020 opinion report contains a clearly articulated medical opinion based upon a thoroughly detailed rationale. The Board thus finds that later opinion to have greater probative value. While the Board finds the Veteran’s assertion that he injured his back during active service to be credible, the Board also concludes that the evidence is against finding that such an injury caused the Veteran’s current back condition. Based on these facts, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim. Accordingly, the claim for service connection is denied. In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, that doctrine is not applicable in this appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Hicks, Associate 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.