Citation Nr: 21004379 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 18-27 756 DATE: January 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s current back disability is not related to an in-service event, disease, or injury. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a back disability have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the U.S. Navy from December 1956 to December 1960 and with the U.S. Coast Guard from April 1961 to April 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2017 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The case was remanded in April 2020 and has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. As the requested development has been completed, no further action is necessary to comply with the Board’s remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Service Connection The Veteran contends that he has a current back disability due to falling on his back from a ladder while serving in Japan sometime in 1966 or 1967. Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran has a current back disability. For example, at his November 2020 VA examination he was diagnosed with lumbosacral strain. Thus, the remaining question is whether the current back disability is related to service. Service treatment records show no complaints, diagnosis, or treatment related to a back disability. As the Veteran reported other ailments during service, including orthopedic complaints, and back problems are the type that a reasonable person would report, if the Veteran was experiencing problems with his back during service the Board would expect that he would have reported these problems to medical professionals. During the February 1968 U.S. Coast Guard separation examination, evaluation of the spine and other musculoskeletal system was normal. The Veteran testified that he did not seek treatment for his back after service, other than through chiropractors whose records are no longer available. A back disability is not shown by medical evidence until approximately 2017, many years after the Veteran’s separation from service. While the Veteran did not discuss any post-service onset, the Veteran did report a motor vehicle accident in Florida in August 2017 which did not require hospitalization but did worsen his low back pain. The Veteran presented for a VA examination in November 2020, at which time he was interviewed by the examiner who also reviewed the pertinent medical history and performed an examination. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not (less than 50 percent) that the Veteran’s claimed back disability is due to the claimed fall from a ladder during service or any other in-service injury, event, or disease. In support of this conclusion, the examiner explained that the Veteran’s March 1966 physical and February 1968 separation physical indicated no back condition, noting “physical examination within normal limits.” The examiner also noted that there are no interval records indicating any complaints, diagnosis or treatment for a back condition, with the Veteran being capable of performing a physically demanding job as a bus driver for the City of Detroit for 27 years until a motor vehicle accident in August 2017 and a medical history in 2018 reflecting this accident. The Board finds this opinion highly probative as it was made by a medical professional with consideration of the specific facts in this case and after examination of the Veteran. The opinion is also supported by other evidence of record such as the normal evaluation of the spine at separation. There is no medical opinion or competent and credible evidence in significant conflict with the VA medical opinion. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements, to include his assertions that he had back during service. As the Veteran is not shown to have medical education or experience, he is a lay person and is competent to report (1) symptoms that are observable to a layperson, e.g., low back pain; (2) symptoms at the time supporting a later diagnosis by a medical professional; or (3) a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (2009). The Veteran is not competent to independently render a medical diagnosis or opine as to the specific etiology of a condition as these are medically complex issues. Thus, his lay assertions do not constitute evidence upon which service connection can be granted. In any event, the Board ultimately assigns greater probative weight to the medical evidence of record, to include the opinion rendered by a trained medical professional which considered the Veteran’s statements in light of the other evidence and was based on appropriate diagnostic testing and reasonably drawn conclusions with supportive rationale. For the above reasons, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and service connection is denied. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. J. Kim, 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.