Citation Nr: 21006710 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-01 724 DATE: February 5, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for shin splints of the right leg is granted. Entitlement to service connection for shin splints of the left leg is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence is in equipoise as to whether shin splints of the right leg is related to active service. 2. The evidence is in equipoise as to whether shin splints of the left leg is related to active service. 3. The weight of evidence shows that the left shoulder disability is related to active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for shin splints of the right leg have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2020). 2. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for shin splints of the left leg have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from April 1974 to April 1979 with one year, 11 months, and eight days of prior active service. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2019, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is unavailable because of an audio malfunction. In December 2019, the Board wrote to the Veteran and afforded him another opportunity for a hearing. In February 2020, the Veteran chose to have another Board hearing. In September 2020, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing held again before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a transcript of that hearing has been associated with the electronic claims file. In December 2020, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) regarding the denial of service connection for a left shoulder disability in the August 2015 rating decision. The Veteran, however, did not opt in from a statement of the case issued after the enactment of the AMA. Therefore, his claim remains in the Board’s legacy system. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for shin splints of the right leg 2. Entitlement to service connection for shin splints of the left leg Governing law and regulations Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Notwithstanding the above, service connection may be granted for disability shown after service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, shows that it was incurred or aggravated in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish service connection for a claimed disorder, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997). To be present as a current disability, the claimed condition must be present at the time of the claim for benefits, as opposed to sometime in the distant past. Gilpin v. West, 155 F. 3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Gilpin requirement that there be a current disability is satisfied when the disability is shown at the time of the claim or during the pendency of the claim, even though the disability subsequently resolves. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Analysis As for Hickson element (1), current disability, a June 2015 VA examiner did not indicate that there is a current diagnosis of bilateral shin splints. The examiner, however, noted later in the examination report that the Veteran has or has had bilateral shin splints. Private treatment records reveal that in May 2017 bilateral shin splints was diagnosed. VA treatment records reflect that in February 2020 the Veteran had recurring bilateral shin splints. Therefore, element (1) is satisfied. Regarding Hickson element (2), in-service disease or injury, the Veteran’s service treatment records do not reflect any complaints of shin pain or findings of shin splints. The Veteran reported that he began to have shin pain during Army Ranger training but that he did not complained about having the symptom because of his status as an Army Ranger. August 2016 statement of the Veteran. His service personnel records show that he was an Army Ranger. The Veteran is competent to report his bilateral shin injury, and the Board finds him credible based on the evidence of his service as an Army Ranger. Thus, element (2) is met. Turning to Hickson element (3), medical nexus, private medical records reveal that in May 2017 an orthopedist stated that it is possible that the bilateral shin splint-type pain is the result of years of military service. VA treatment records reflect that it was noted in February 2020 that the Veteran has had intermittent shin splints for years and that the shin splints have been recurring in the last 12 years. Given that the private orthopedist stated that it is possible that the disability is the result of service, the evidence is in equipoise as to whether bilateral shin splints are related to active service. Hence, element (3), medical nexus, is satisfied. In summary, the Board is of the opinion that the Veteran has met all requirements needed to establish service connection for bilateral shin splints. The benefits sought on appeal are accordingly allowed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability As for Hickson element (1), current disability, private treatment records reveal that X-rays of the left shoulder show mild osteoarthritis. As such, element (1) is satisfied. Regarding Hickson element (2), in-service disease or injury, the Veteran’s service treatment records do not reflect any complaints of left shoulder pain or findings of a left shoulder disability. In an August 2016 statement, he reported that he experienced pain and loss of mobility in the left shoulder during a parachute jump. As noted above, the Veteran served as an Army Ranger. His DD Form 214 shows that he earned the Senior Parachutist Badge. The Veteran is competent to report his left shoulder injury, and the Board finds him credible based on the evidence of extensive parachuting. Therefore, element (2) is met. Turning to Hickson element (3), medical nexus, private medical records reveal that in April 2017 an orthopedist stated that it is possible that the Veteran injured his left shoulder in service. In May 2017, that doctor opined that it is highly possible that he injured the left shoulder in service and that the injury led to his mild left shoulder arthritis. Given that the private orthopedist stated that it is highly possible that the disability is the result of an in-service injury, the weight of evidence shows that the left shoulder disability is related to active service. Accordingly, element (3), medical nexus, is satisfied. In summary, the Board is of the opinion that the Veteran has met all requirements needed to establish service connection for a left shoulder disability. The benefit sought on appeal is accordingly allowed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Cherry, 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.