Citation Nr: 21000325 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-11 666 DATE: January 5, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the spine with intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS), also referred to as low back condition, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record does not show that the Veteran’s low back condition is related to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for degenerative arthritis of the spine with intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS), also referred to as low back condition, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from March 1984 to March 1988. In August 2020, the Veteran was provided a hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a transcript of the proceeding is of record. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In order to establish service connection, the record must show competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d, 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When considering such a claim for service connection, the Board must consider on a case-by-case basis, the competence and sufficiency of lay evidence offered to support a finding of service connection. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 Fed. Cir. 2007)). The mere conclusory or generalized lay statements that a service event or illness caused a current disability are insufficient. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). Entitlement to Service Connection: Low Back The Veteran contends that his low back condition is related to his active duty service. As an initial matter, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has diagnoses of degenerative arthritis of the spine and IVDS. Further, the Veteran’s service treatment records show he suffered a lumbosacral strain in January 1985. Thus, the issue turns upon whether there is evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service event or injury and the present disability. See Sheldon v. Prinicipi 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board finds there is not. In November 2015, the Veteran was provided a VA examination. The examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner rationalized that although the Veteran’s service treatment records note back complaints after heavy lifting on January 24, 1985 with a follow up a few days later, there were no further documented complaints through his remaining three years of service. The examiner explained that there were no office visit notes regarding a back condition from Kaiser for review. The examiner stated he was unable to link the Veteran’s current back condition with degenerative changes to the back strain in 1985 as there is no evidence of chronicity or nexus. The examiner lastly noted that the Veteran’s mild multi-level degenerative changes are age appropriate. VA treatment records and private medical records show treatment and complaints for the Veteran’s low back/lumbar spine. However, none of these records relate the Veteran’s condition to his active duty service. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has reported going to his private physician at Kaiser in the 1990s for his low back pain; however, the Veteran reported these records are unavailable. The Board notes that the earliest documentation in the record of back issues is from October 2014, which is over 25 years after his active duty service. There is no evidence of record demonstrating a low back condition prior to 2014. Therefore, the Board finds November 2015 VA opinion to be of significant probative value in determining that the Veteran’s low back condition is not related to his period of service. The Board notes that the probative value of medical opinion evidence is based on the medical experts’ personal examination of the patient, their knowledge, and skill in analyzing the data, and their medical conclusion. As is true with any piece of evidence, the credibility and weight to be attached to these opinions are within the province of the adjudicator. Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993). Whether a physician provides a basis for his or her medical opinion goes to the weight or credibility of the evidence in the adjudication of the merits. See Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998). Here, the reviewing physician’s opinion was based on review of the Veteran’s lay contentions, his reported medical history, medical literature, and review of the medical evidence of record. Further, a complete and thorough rationale was provided for the opinion rendered. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that his low back condition is due to his active duty service. The Board recognizes that lay persons are competent to provide medical opinions on some medical issues. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). However, although the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, any opinion regarding whether any back disability is related to his military service, to include lumbosacral strain, requires medical expertise that the Veteran has not demonstrated since back disabilities can have many causes. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 (2007). As the Veteran has a diagnosis of arthritis, the Board has also considered presumptive service connection or service connection based on a continuity of symptomatology. However, there is no evidence that the Veteran had a low back disability that manifested within one year after discharge from service. To the extent that the Veteran asserts that he experienced a low back disability continuously since discharge from service, the Board again notes that the Veteran has provided no evidence showing treatment for a low back condition until October 2014, over 25 years after his active duty service, and thus his lay statements are not credible. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the preponderance of evidence is against the claim and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed Cir. 2001). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Negron, 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.