Citation Nr: 21067104 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 19-24 068 DATE: November 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's neck disability had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to February 1976. This matter came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which, inter alia, denied service connection for a neck condition. The Veteran disagreed with the RO's determination, and a statement of the case (SOC) was issued in July 2019 addressing the matter. The Veteran timely appealed. In November 2021, the Veteran testified during a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). Although a transcript of that hearing has not yet been made, one is not necessary in this case as the benefits sought are being granted in full. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in the active military, naval, air, or space service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service incurrence of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 1. Neck For the following reasons, the Board finds that service connection for a neck disability is warranted. In this case, the evidence of record demonstrates that the requirement for a current disability has been met. Specifically, a June 2019 VA examination report shows a diagnosis of degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine. Thus, the first element of service connection has been met. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are negative of complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a neck condition. In June 1972, the Veteran received treatment for ankle and back injuries associated with a motorcycle accident. In his September 2017 notice of disagreement (NOD), the Veteran asserted that his neck condition resulted from a motorcycle accident in 1972 while on active duty with the Army. At his November 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he suffered severe injuries in the motorcycle accident, and the neck condition was less severe, so he did not mention or focus on it. He noted that he has had neck pain ever since the motorcycle accident and has continued to experience neck symptoms since service. Here, the competent and credible lay statements from the Veteran demonstrates that he exhibited symptoms during service. This is sufficient to establish the second element of service connection claim. In a June 2019 VA examination report, the examiner opined that the Veteran's neck condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner explained that the Veteran has reported continuous neck pain since 1972, however, there is no objective evidence in the medical records that the Veteran suffered any neck injury caused by the motorcycle accident. The examiner further explained that the Veteran's neck condition developed as he became older, and after being an avid golfer for at least 28 years. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's degenerative disease of the cervical spine has a causal nexus with the conditions that developed in the early years of the 2000s that caused him to stop playing golf in 2005. The examiner noted the evidence also supports the fact that Veteran did not have any condition affecting his neck that caused any impairment before 2000, which was 28 years after the motorcycle accident. In an October 2021 letter, private Dr. R.S. opined that the Veteran suffered a neck injury as a result of his motor vehicle accident in 1972. Dr. R.S. explained that the when the Veteran suffered extensive injury in the 1972 motorcycle accident, he also suffered a neck injury. Dr. R.S. further explained that the Veteran has residual pain from all of his injuries, however, his neck has always been an issue for him. His symptoms included chronic stiffness, decreased range of motion, and pain. In this case, the evidence of record includes conflicting opinions from June 2019 VA examiner and private Dr. R.S. as to the etiology of the Veteran's neck disability. The VA examiner and Dr. R.S. provided a thorough rationale for the basis of their medical opinions. Thus, the Board can find no basis upon which to assign greater probative weight to either medical opinion. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning). Under the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, for the appellant to prevail, there need not be a preponderance of the evidence in his favor, but only an approximate balance of the positive and negative evidence. Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391, 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In other words, the preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for the benefit to be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Given the evidence set forth above, such a conclusion cannot be made in this case. Under these circumstances, the record is sufficient to award service connection for the Veteran's neck disability. Thus, the Board finds that service connection for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine is warranted. Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Walker, 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.