Citation Nr: 21074330 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-55 707 DATE: December 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability, diagnosed as osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint and acromioclavicular joint, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's left shoulder disability is causally or etiologically due to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW 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. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from August 1970 to August 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from an April 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. The requested hearing was conducted in August 2020 by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is associated with the claims file. In June 2021, the Board remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability and a back disability for additional development. In a September 2021 rating decision, the Veteran was granted service connection for a lumbar spine disability. As such, that issue is no longer before the Board. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability. He asserts he began experiencing shoulder pain during service after an injury and continues to experience pain and limitation of motion. Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). In general, service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181 (1992); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Equal weight is not necessarily accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; not every item of evidence necessarily has the same probative value. Furthermore, in determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of matter, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Board notes that it has thoroughly reviewed the record in conjunction with this case. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence submitted by the Veteran or on his behalf. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 129 (2000) (noting that the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant). The Veteran has a current diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint and the acromioclavicular joint. See July 2021 VA examination. As such, Shedden element (1), current diagnosis, is met. Service treatment records indicate the Veteran injured his left shoulder in July 1994. He sought treatment for left shoulder pain, noting he fell while playing racquetball. At the time, he was assessed with a contusion of the left clavicle with a possible mild shoulder separation. As such, the Board finds that Shedden element (2) has been satisfied. As for Shedden element (3), nexus, the Board finds that the evidence indicates the Veteran's current left shoulder disability is due to service. The July 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's left shoulder osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint and the acromioclavicular joint is at least as likely as not related to his military service. The examiner explained that the Veteran had documented in-service problems with his left shoulder at the acromioclavicular joint, which developed into osteoarthritis of the joint and the glenohumeral joint as well. The Board notes the negative March 2017 VA examiner's opinion. The examiner opined that the Veteran's current left shoulder disorder was less likely than not due to service, noting the Veteran left active duty in 1995 and checked "no" for shoulder pain in 1995, with medical records indicating the Veteran's left shoulder pain did not start until 2005. However, as noted in the June 2021 Board remand, this opinion was based on an inaccurate factual basis as service treatment records documented left shoulder pain and limited range of motion. As such, the Board finds the March 2017 VA opinion has little probative value. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). The Board finds the July 2021 VA opinion persuasive. The Board finds no adequate basis to reject the evidence of record that is favorable to the Veteran, based on a lack of credibility or probative value. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 26 (1998). The Veteran has a current diagnosis, an in-service injury, and a medical opinion that relates his current diagnosis to his time in service. As such, the Veteran's service connection claim for a left shoulder disability is granted. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Andersen, 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.