Citation Nr: 21006225 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 08-23 393 DATE: February 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected back and right shoulder disabilities, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder is causally related to or was aggravated by his active military service or service-connected back and right shoulder disabilities. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 1154; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1975 to May 1979 and August 1979 to August 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in January 2007 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2011, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. As the Veterans Law Judge subsequently retired, the Veteran was informed that he may testify at a new Board hearing before a different Veterans Law Judge in a January 2017 letter; however, he indicated that he did not want another Board hearing in a response received later that month. He was again provided such opportunity in a May 2019 letter, but he did not respond. In March 2012, February 2018 and February 2019, the Board remanded the matter for additional development. In December 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing, via video conference before the undersigning Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities The Veteran contends that he has cervical spine disorder related to his military service. 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 disorder 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 disorder is related to his military service. The Veteran’s STRs reflect that the Veteran was involved in a couple motorcycle accidents during his active service. However, the STRs does not reflect the Veteran was given a diagnosis of a cervical spine condition. In September 2018, a VA medical opinion was obtained in order to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s current cervical spine disorder, diagnosed as degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease. The September 2018 examiner opined that the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. In support thereof, the examiner explained that there was no evidence of a neck injury in connection with the Veteran’s two in-service motorcycle accidents and no complaints of neck pain during his military service. The examiner also noted that the first evidence of neck pain was in 2009, 28 years after the Veteran left service, and, during such time, the Veteran continued to ride a motorcycle and work as a postal carrier that required him to carry a mail bag. The examiner further observed that the Veteran was 54 years old and had been out of the military for 30 years at the time the February 2012 X-rays noted degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine. Thus, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s cervical spine disorders were most likely due to aging and his post-service occupation, and that continued use of a helmet and riding a motorcycle after service likely aggravated the condition. The Board finds that the claim must be denied. In this case, there is no competent medical evidence that supports the conclusion that the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder was incurred in or aggravated by his service. It is the role of the Board to evaluate the credibility of the evidence provided. Here, for the reasons described above, the Board does not find that the Veteran’s contentions are sufficiently consistent with the evidence of record to establish a continuity of cervical spine symptomatology from the time of service to the present. The Board notes that the Veteran may sincerely believe that he a cervical spine disorder 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 claimed condition 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). The Veteran has also contended that his cervical spine disability is secondary to service-connected back and right shoulder disabilities. Service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a disability that was proximately due to or the result of, or is aggravated beyond its natural progress by, service-connected disability. The Board finds that the evidence is against a finding that his cervical spine disorder is due to or aggravated by a service-connected disability. In a November 2019 VA medical opinion, the examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder is proximately due to or the result of (to include aggravation), the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities. The examiner explained that basic medical principles, to include a review of medical literature, reveals no evidence that a shoulder condition, lumbar spine condition, or the proper use of a cane causes degenerative disc disease (DDD) or degenerative joint disease (DJD). Based on the given facts, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s cervical spine disorder is related to his service-connected disabilities. Thus, service connection for such cannot be granted. The Board has considered the doctrine of giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellant as provided 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). The appeal is denied. 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.