Citation Nr: 21013301 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-43 122 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for low back condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record does not show that the Veteran’s low back condition is related to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for low back condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from December 1962 to December 1965. In September 2019, the Veteran was provided a hearing and a transcript of the proceeding is of record. The claim was brought before the Board in February 2020 and was remanded for further development. Service Connection 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. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In order to establish service connection, the record must show competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d, 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When considering such a claim for service connection, the Board must consider on a case-by-case basis, the competence and sufficiency of lay evidence offered to support a finding of service connection. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 Fed. Cir. 2007)). The mere conclusory or generalized lay statements that a service event or illness caused a current disability are insufficient. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). Entitlement to Service Connection: Low Back Condition The Veteran contends that his low back condition is related to his active duty service. As an initial matter, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has been diagnosed with lumbosacral strain.  Further, the Veteran’s service records show he was seen for a backache and noted as having tenderness in the sacroiliac joints and lumbarization in the S1.  Thus, the issue turns upon whether there is evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service event or injury and the present disability.  See Sheldon v. Principi 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board finds there is not. An October 2013 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s back disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service, basing the opinion largely on the fact that the Veteran’s back had not bothered him post service for 20 to 30 years. However, as there were missing medical records shortly after service, this opinion is inadequate for adjudication purposes and is afforded low probative value. In January 2021, the Veteran attended a VA examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner rationalized that the Veteran’s in-service occurrence of lumbago was acute only and there was no evidence of chronicity of care, as well as his symptoms were subjective only. The examiner explained that a note in the Veteran’s service records states the Veteran woke up with a backache and was tender in the sacroiliac joints. His lumbar spine x-ray demonstrated lumbarization of the S1, which occasionally was symptomatic. The examiner stated there were no other abnormalities seen. The examiner provided that the Veteran currently has a diagnosis of lumbosacral strain with sciatica in his right leg, and there are no medical records that discuss chronic treatment for back pain. The Veteran has provided no medical records that relate his back condition to his service. There is further no medical evidence of record showing the Veteran has sought treatment for his back condition prior to 2013, which is almost 50 years after his active duty service. His records also show the Veteran reported suffering an incident in 1994 where the Veteran threw his back out when cleaning a tub and again in 2004 following a car incident. Moreover, following the Board’s February 2020 remand, the Regional Office requested the Veteran submit information regarding his reported treatment through the years; however, the Veteran never responded. The Board notes that the duty to assist the Veteran in the development of evidence pertinent to his claim is not a “one-way street.” Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Therefore, the Board finds the January 2021 VA opinion to be of significant probative value in determining the Veteran’s condition is not related to his active duty service.  The Board notes that the probative value of medical opinion evidence is based on the medical experts’ personal examination of the patient, their knowledge, and skill in analyzing the data, and their medical conclusion.  As is true with any piece of evidence, the credibility and weight to be attached to these opinions are within the province of the adjudicator.  Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993).  Here, the examiner showed knowledge of the Veteran’s background and based the opinion on the Veteran’s lay contentions, the physician’s medical knowledge, and examination of the Veteran.  Additionally, a complete and thorough rationale was provided for the opinion rendered and is consistent with the medical evidence of record.  See Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993).    The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that his back condition is related to his active duty service.  The Board recognizes that lay persons are competent to provide medical opinions on some medical issues. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011).  However, although the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, any opinion regarding whether any disability is present is related to his military service, requires medical expertise that the Veteran has not demonstrated since back disabilities can have many causes.  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 (2007).  Further, the Board again notes that the Veteran has provided no evidence showing treatment for a back condition prior to 2013, which is almost 50 years after his active duty service. The Veteran further reported hurting his back in 1994 and again in 2004. Thus, the Board cannot put probative weight to his statements that he has suffered from a back disability since service, or that his condition is related to his service. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the preponderance of evidence is against the claim and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application.  See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed Cir. 2001).   JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Negron, Associate 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.