Citation Nr: 21008567 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 15-08 868A DATE: February 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder, to include arthritis, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder, to include arthritis, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a neck disorder began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a back disorder began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a neck disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for a back disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from February 1965 to February1969. The Veteran had a hearing before the undersigned in October 2018. In November 2018 and September 2020, the Board remanded this matter for additional development, mainly new VA examinations/opinions and private medical records. In September 2020, the Board also denied service connection for hypertension. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for (a) a neck disorder and (b) a back disorder. During his October 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran claimed that he developed his neck and back disorders in service. He reported being on a bus that a semi ran into the back of, but that he did not go to sick call. He also reported that when incoming rounds came, he would jump on the floor and get under the bed and scratch his back but did not go to sick call. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that although the Veteran has current diagnoses of neck and back disabilities, to include degenerative arthritis (the November 2020 VA examinations found x-rays showed mild degenerative changes of the cervical, lumbar and thoracic spine), the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the claimed disorders began during service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The service treatment records are silent as to any complaints of, or treatment for, the back or neck. His December 1968 separation examination found a normal spine. The Veteran denied having recurrent back or shoulder pain at that time. During his Board hearing, the Veteran denied seeking any treatment for the back or neck in service, because he was discouraged from seeking medical attention. Although the service treatment records are silent for treatment for the back or neck injuries or symptoms, there are multiple records regarding various other physical complaints that show that the Veteran was not actually stopped from seeking medical treatment on multiple occasions for other physical disorders. Following his February 1969 separation from service, the record is silent as to any complaints of, or treatment for, the back or neck for decades, until he filed his current claims for service connection in 2012. A February 2014 VA medical record, to establish medical care, found that the Veteran complained of a variety of mild “arthritis” pain. When the weather was cold, he would have achy pain in his digits and toes. The provider found his joint pain to likely be arthritis and disc disease. VA medical records occasionally indicated complaints of, or treatment for, the back and neck, but they did not provide any etiology opinions. Also, of record are private medical records that generally document treatment for claimed disorders, but no etiology opinions. For example, a June 2018 Colonial Neurology record documented that the Veteran reported progressive chronic neck pain for the past 15 to 20 years. The Board notes that the RO also attempted to obtain other private medical records, but that the Veteran did not respond to their requests for information, such as in August 2019 and November 2019. The Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of neck or back pain since service, but he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of arthritis or other disability. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of diagnostic requirements and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board further finds that the Veteran’s reports as to chronicity are not credible. As noted above, the Veteran denied any back or shoulder problems on his separation from service. Although he currently claims that he never sought treatment in service because such action was discouraged, the service treatment records document multiple instances of the Veteran seeking treatment for various maladies for different parts of his body, but not for the back or neck. Additionally, the Veteran’s history of when his neck pain began has varied, to include during service (October 2018 Board hearing), after service (reported to the November 2020 VA examiner), or within the last 15 to 20 years (June 2018 Colonial Neurology record). Given the conflicting evidence of record, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements as to onset and chronicity are not credible. The Board notes that a November 2019 VA examination opinion found that neither the claimed neck or back disorder was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The VA examiner explained service treatment records did not corroborate the claimed injuries. In the Board remand, the Board found such opinion was insufficient as it appeared to solely rely on a lack of in-service corroboration. The Board obtained a new VA examination. The November 2020 VA examination (signed in December 2020), the Veteran’s reported history of developing back pain in about 1970, with no known injury. The Veteran reported being in a bus wreck in service, but not having pain at that time. He currently has had back pain for some time. He also reported developing neck pain in about 1971 after service and claimed to have been seeing a doctor at that time. The November 2020 VA examiner found that the Veteran was never seen in the military for back or neck pain. His separation exam did not note such pain. The examiner further noted Board hearing testimony by the Veteran of in-service injuries. However, the examiner further noted that the Veteran was not seen for many years after he got out of the military. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that his back problem started while in the military The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Board notes that unlike the 2019 VA examiner, the November 2020 VA examiner did not rely solely lack on a dearth of in-service corroboration, but also noted separation examination findings, lay statements regarding injury, and temporal importance. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the November 2020 VA examination opinion. No medical professional has provided any probative opinion evidence supportive of the Veteran’s claims. As the preponderance of the most probative evidence of record is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. Service connection for a neck disorder and a back disorder is denied. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Lindio 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.