Citation Nr: 20045032 Decision Date: 07/07/20 Archive Date: 07/07/20 DOCKET NO. 17-23 946 DATE: July 7, 2020 ORDER Service connection for arthritis of the low back is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s arthritis of the low back is caused by to his service-connected bilateral foot disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for arthritis of the low back as secondary to service-connected bilateral foot disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from November 1992 through August 1993 and October 1994 through December 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2020. 1. Service connection for a back disability as secondary to service-connected bilateral foot disability. To establish service connection for a claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and current disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also, Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting in a disease or injury that is incurred in or aggravated by active duty military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be found on a secondary basis where the following criteria is met: (1) a current disability that is not already service-connected; (2) at least one service-connected disability; and, (3) evidence that the non-service-connected current disability is either proximately due to or as the result of a service-connected disability; or, aggravated beyond its natural progress by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (2018); see also, El-Amin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 136 (2013); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). The Veteran contends that his back disability is due to his service-connected bilateral foot disability. During the April 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that his service-connected bilateral foot disability causes him to walk with an altered gait. The Veteran stated that his altered gait has caused worsening back pain over the last five to six years. The Veteran’s wife submitted a statement in May 2020 corroborating his testimony by stating that she has witnessed the Veteran’s altered gait and his difficulties with increasing back pain over the past several years. The Board finds that service connection for a back disability is warranted. In this case, the evidence shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis of the spine in October 2015 and is service connected for a bilateral foot disability. Further, the Veteran’s primary care physicians concluded that the Veteran’s bilateral foot disability caused his altered gait, which more likely than not contributed to the Veteran’s chronic back pain and decreased range of motion. See Medical Treatment Record, October 22, 2013 and April 10, 2020. The Board acknowledges the negative VA opinion evidence. However, based on the medical and lay evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence shows that the Veteran’s back disability is secondary to the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral foot disability. Thus, service connection is warranted. 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.