Citation Nr: 21073285 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 18-28 649 DATE: December 8, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, a petition to reopen a claim for service connection for a back disability is granted. New and material evidence having been received, a petition to reopen a claim for service connection for a left shoulder disability is granted. New and material evidence having been received, a petition to reopen a claim for service connection for a right shoulder disability is granted. New and material evidence having been received, a petition to reopen a claim for service connection for a right knee disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence added to the record since the October 2002 rating decision is not cumulative or redundant of evidence previously of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of entitlement to service connection for a back disability, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 2. The evidence added to the record since the October 2002 rating decision is not cumulative or redundant of evidence previously of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 3. The evidence added to the record since the October 2002 rating decision is not cumulative or redundant of evidence previously of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 4. The evidence added to the record since the September 2002 Board decision is not cumulative or redundant of evidence previously of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 5. The Veteran's back shoulder disability is related to an in-service May 1992 motor vehicle accident. 6. The Veteran's right shoulder disability is related to an in-service May 1992 motor vehicle accident. 7. The Veteran's left shoulder disability is related to an in-service May 1992 motor vehicle accident. 8. The Veteran's right knee disability is related to an in-service May 1992 motor vehicle accident. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a back disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 2. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 3. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 4. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2018). 5. The criteria for service connection for a back disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 6. The criteria for service connection for a left shoulder disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 7. The criteria for service connection for a right shoulder disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 8. The criteria for service connection for a right knee disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty from April 1969 to March 1971, and he was a member of the South Carolina Army National Guard from January 1975 to January 1997. In pertinent part, he was on active duty for training from May 23, 1992 to June 6, 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The issue of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability was denied in a September 2004 Board decision. In November 2021, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the proceeding will be associated with the electronic claims file. NEW AND MATERIAL Generally, a claim which has been denied in an unappealed RO decision or an unappealed Board decision may not thereafter be reopened and allowed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104 (b), 7105(c) (2012). The exception to this rule is 38 U.S.C. § 5108, which provides that if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened; and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been submitted, the credibility of the evidence, although not its weight, is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). But see Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216 (1994) (Justus does not require the Secretary [of VA] to consider the patently incredible to be credible). 1. New and material evidence having been received, a petition to reopen a claim for service connection for a back disability 2. New and material evidence having been received, a petition to reopen a claim for service connection for a left shoulder disability 3. New and material evidence having been received, a petition to reopen a claim for service connection for a right shoulder disability 4. New and material evidence having been received, a petition to reopen a claim for service connection for a right knee disability Service connection for a back disability and right and left shoulder disabilities was denied in an October 2002 rating decision. Service connection for a right knee disability was denied in a Board September 2004 decision. In the October 2002 decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) determined that there was no nexus between the Veteran's back and shoulder disabilities and the Veteran's military service. In the September 2004 decision, the Board found no current right knee disability. Since the October 2002 rating decision and the Board 2004 decision, evidence added to the record includes a November 2018 opinion by the Veteran's physician noting that the Veteran's disabilities were due to a 1992 motor vehicle accident. The Veteran also testified that he had knee pain since the 1992 accident. As there is evidence of current pain of the right knee and a relationship between the Veteran's disabilities and the Veteran's in-service motor vehicle accident, the Board concludes that a previously identified defect has been cured, and that the claims may be reopened. SERVICE CONNECTION 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability 3. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability The Veteran asserts that his right shoulder, left shoulder, right knee and back disability are due to the May 1992 motor vehicle accident. The Board concludes that the Veteran has current disabilities that are related to the 1992 motor vehicle accident. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The June 2002 and November 2018 letters show that the Veteran has current diagnosis for the back and shoulders. A March 2001 VA treatment record documents right knee pain. The claims file also shows that the Veteran was in a motor vehicle accident in May 1992 that happened in the line of duty. See June 1992 Report of Investigation. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disabilities are related to service. On this question there are probative opinions in favor of and against the claim. The evidence against the claim includes a June 1993 letter noting a normal physical examination. The evidence in favor of the claim includes a June 2002 letter from the Veteran's chiropractor noting that the Veteran's injuries of his back, neck and shoulder were sustained in a 1992 accident. Evidence in favor of the claim also includes a November 2018 treatment record noting that the Veteran's injuries stem from a 1992 accident which were likely a contributing factor to the symptoms he has now with his neck and back. A March 2001 VA treatment record notes that the Veteran's right knee pain was due to a 1992 motor vehicle accident. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current left shoulder, right shoulder, knee disability and back disability are related to service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for a left shoulder, right shoulder and back disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Tahirih S. Samadani, 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.