Citation Nr: 20021962 Decision Date: 03/30/20 Archive Date: 03/30/20 DOCKET NO. 17-29 510 DATE: March 30, 2020 ORDER Service connection for a left shoulder disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT A left shoulder disorder is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, injury, or incident during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left shoulder disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1986 to September 1989. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an April 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In March 2019, the Board remanded the case for additional development and it now returns for further appellate review. Service connection for a left shoulder disorder. The Veteran contends that he has a current left shoulder disorder that is due to a left shoulder injury he sustained while in active service. Specifically, the Veteran contends he injured his left shoulder slipping and falling from the wing of an aircraft while in service. However, after a review of the record, the Board finds that the Veteran’s currently left shoulder disorder was not incurred in or caused by the in-service injury, and thus, service connection for such is not warranted. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of left shoulder tendonitis from his October 2019 VA examination. Further, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) reflect that he had tenderness over the left trapezius muscle following a fall from the wing of an aircraft in December 1987. However, the Veteran’s primary complaint and treatment at that time were for a right shoulder injury. Similarly, the Veteran was treated for a right shoulder injury in May 1988 which occurred during a baseball game. The treatment notes do not include left shoulder complaints, and x-rays taken of the left shoulder at such time were negative. Finally, the Veteran’s separation examination was negative for complaints or note of a left shoulder disorder. Following service, the first evidence of record for a left shoulder disorder is a December 2010 VA treatment record noting the Veteran had intermittent left shoulder pain. His records are then silent for any left shoulder complaints until a March 2016 treatment record noted he had a left shoulder strain after working out in the yard and hiking. The Veteran then underwent a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his left shoulder disorder in October 2019, at which time his left shoulder tendinitis was diagnosed. The Veteran reported at that time that in 1992 while on duty, he hit on main body of the aircraft wing, resulting in left shoulder pain, and he was evaluated at the base hospital. He reported an x-ray was taken of his bilateral shoulders, and he was told it was a negative finding. He then was put on light duty for one week and then back to regular duty, and he did not complain of left shoulder pain after going back to work. Then, in 1993, he started to have left shoulder pain, which kept gradually getting worse. In 1998, he noticed decreased the range of motion to left shoulder, with pops and worsening pain. After conducting an examination, and considering the Veteran’s reports, the examiner then opined that the Veteran’s left shoulder disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the in-service event, injury, or illness. In this regard, he noted the Veteran’s reported 1992 injury does not match the STR evidence of an injury in 1987, and his records thereafter do not show decreased range of motion in the left shoulder. Additionally, the Veteran reported no pain after the 1992 incident, rather reporting pain starting in 1993. The examiner also noted the Veteran had an intercurrent left shoulder injury in 2016. Finally, the examiner noted that the 1987 injury with complaints of pain in the left trapezius is not the same diagnosis as his current left shoulder tendinitis, and pointed out that they are separate findings. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran’s current left shoulder disorder is not related to his in-service left shoulder injury, and consequently service connection is not warranted. See Shedden, supra. In reaching its decision, the Board finds the October 2019 examiner’s opinion highly probative. In this regard, the opinion proffered considered all the pertinent evidence of record, to include the statements of the Veteran, in particular those regarding his in-service incidents and the onset and continuity of left shoulder pain, and provided a complete rationale, relying on and citing to the records reviewed. Moreover, the examiner offered clear conclusions with supporting data as well as reasoned medical explanations connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) (“[A]medical opinion... must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions”). Notably, there is no medical opinion to the contrary, and the Board’s review of the record does not reveal any inaccurate factual premises on which the examiner’s opinions rely. In this regard, the Board notes that the Veteran reported his in-service accident as occurring in 1992, which is incorrect. However, the examiner noted the actual in-service injury in his opinion, and thus showed consideration of such incident, regardless of the error in timeline given by the Veteran. Thus, such error is harmless. Further, the Board recognizes that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms of left shoulder pain, his shoulder injuries, and resulting symptoms; however, he is not competent to diagnose a disability based on such symptoms, or provide an etiological opinion regarding such diagnosis. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 491 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this regard, the Veteran has not shown he has the education, experience, or expertise required to address such complex medical matters, as such involves a medical subject concerning an internal physical process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007). As such, the question of etiology in this case may not be competently addressed by lay evidence, and the Veteran’s opinion in such regard is afforded no probative weight. Likewise, the Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report which shoulder he injured while in service. In this regard, the Veteran disputes the evidence of record indicating he injured his right shoulder, and rather contends such injuries and treatment were for his left shoulder. However, the Board finds the STRs are explicit and clear in that the Veteran injured his right shoulder, with numerous references to the right shoulder, and clear delineation between left shoulder and right shoulder complaints in treatment. Further, such treatment occurred on separate dates and uniformly differentiated his injuries and complaints between shoulders. Thus, the Board finds the STRs and contemporaneous medical evidence more probative than his statements that his injuries were to the left shoulder. See Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 390, 394 (1994) (Board decision properly assigned more probative value to a private hospital record that included lay history that was made for treatment purposes than to subsequent statements made for compensation purposes); see also Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 59 (1994) (noting that contemporaneous evidence has greater probative value than history as reported by the veteran). Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board finds that service connection for a left shoulder disorder is not warranted. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claims for service connection. As such, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra. J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jonathan M. Estes 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.