Citation Nr: 21014325 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 18-13 282 DATE: March 11, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical condition, diagnosed as cervical radiculopathy with parasthesia of the bilateral upper extremities, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a low back condition, diagnosed as a lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis of the spine, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A cervical spine disability is not currently shown for service connection purposes. 2. The Veteran’s low back disability is etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a low back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from May 2006 to April 2016. He appeals a July 2016 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine condition and a lumbar spine condition. In October 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Service Connection Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. Generally, the evidence must show: (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, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine condition. The Veteran contends that his cervical spine condition is attributable to service. After review of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for this disorder. Specifically, review of the Veteran’s service treatment records shows complaints of upper extremity numbness upon separation from service, and he was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy and parasthesia of the bilateral upper extremities in June 2016, shortly after separation from active service. However, he has not been diagnosed specifically with an actual disorder to the cervical spine. To be clear, it is not required that there be unmistakable pathology to the cervical spine in order to establish a current disability for purposes of service connection. In fact, all that is required is that the disorder results in pain to the extent that it results in actual functional impairment. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). However, while the Veteran did discuss at his hearing before the Board in October 2020 that he experienced symptoms of pain and limitation of motion, it did not appear that such symptoms actually led to functional impairment. In fact, at a VA examination in June 2016, the examiner specifically found that his range of motion was normal, and there was no tenderness or pain during neck movement. As a result, although his cervical spine does not appear to be symptom-free, the Board concludes that such symptoms lead to functional impairment to the extent that he has a “current disability” for service-connection purposes. Consequently, when a claimed condition is not shown, there may be no grant of service connection. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992) (Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability). In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In arriving at this conclusion, the Board has also considered the statements made by the Veteran asserting that he has a cervical spine disorder that is related to active duty. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). However, the Veteran is not competent to provide testimony regarding the presence or etiology of a cervical spine. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377, n.4. Because this disorder is not diagnosed by unique and readily identifiable features, it does not involve a simple identification that a layperson is competent to make. Therefore, the unsubstantiated statements regarding the claimed etiology of the Veteran's disorders are found to lack competency. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a low back condition. As for the Veteran’s back disorder, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. First, a review of the Veteran’s service treatment records shows complaints of daily back pain upon separation from service. He was diagnosed with a lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis of the spine in 2019. In February 2020, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to evaluate his lower back condition. After review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner opined that his lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis of the spine was at least as likely as not related to service. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran complained of back pain at separation and has continued to complain of chronic low back pain to the present. Consequently, the weight of the medical and lay evidence demonstrates that the Veteran’s low back disability is etiologically related to active service. Accordingly, service connection is warranted, and the claim is granted. 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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Daniel Ballinger, Associate Counsel