Citation Nr: 21001850 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 14-20 188A DATE: January 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence reflects that the Veteran’s cervical spine disability is not etiologically related to his active military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 2002 to February 2003. The Board last remanded this appeal in July 2020. The case is once again before the Board. With respect to the Veteran’s claim decided herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 (2016); see also Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability The Veteran contends that he has a cervical spine condition related to his military service. During a September 2015 hearing before a Decision Review Office (DRO), the Veteran reported that he was treated for pain in the cervical spine in January 2003, while in service, after he felt something pop when he was moving a toolbox. Service treatment records identify treatment for a painful knot on the left side of the neck in January 2003. A CAT scan and MRI completed in April 2010 identified degenerative disc disease. To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a cervical spine condition that is etiologically related to, or aggravated by, an in-service disease or injury. The Board finds that competent, credible, and probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s cervical spine condition is related to his military service. In August 2020, a VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s cervical spine condition is related to his active service. The examiner explained that the Veteran’s in-service incident was tinea capitus with associated swollen lymph nodes. The examiner explained that the Veteran’s skin condition was treated with an oral anti-fungal. Further, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s treatment was an isolated, singular event without long-term consequences. Additionally, the examiner noted that it is a medical fact that tinea does not cause cervical degenerative spine disease, to include degenerative disc disease. The examiner continued to opine that with a confidence level of 100 percent, it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s neck condition, to include DDD, is due to or incurred in the tinea capitus infection while in service. Lastly, the examiner noted that service treatment records do not reflect an acute or chronic cervical spine condition arising in service. Rather, the first instance of treatment for, or complaint of, a neck condition was approximately in 2010. Based on the above, the Board finds service connection for cervical spine disability is not warranted. The Board notes that the Veteran may sincerely believe that he has a cervical spine disability causally related to active service. However, the most probative clinical etiology opinion with regard to the Veteran’s claimed condition is against such a finding. The Veteran has not been shown to have the experience, training, or education necessary to make an etiology opinion to the claimed disability. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, the Board finds that a lay person is not competent to provide a probative opinion as to the specific issue in this case in light of the education and training necessary to make a finding with regard to the complexity of the back for VA purposes. The Board finds that such etiology findings fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). (Continued on the next page) The Board has considered the doctrine of giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, under 38 U.S.C. § 5107, and 38 C.F.R. § 3.102), but does not find that the evidence is of such approximate balance as to warrant its application. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54-56 (1990). DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Brandon A. Williams, 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.