Citation Nr: 21015372 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-55 286 DATE: March 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine is attributable to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 2002 to September 2003. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge during a March 2021 hearing. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine The Veteran contends that his lumbar spine disability began in service and has persisted since service. The Board concludes that service connection is warranted. The Veteran’s DD-214 shows that he was a health care specialist and completed a 16-week health care training course. Service treatment records document low back pain and treatment. November 2002 records noted low back pain for two weeks. The provider diagnosed strain. Subsequent November 2002 records show low back pain 7/10 with onset 2 months prior. The provider diagnosed lumbar sprain/spasm. November 2002 physical therapy records noted a gradual onset of symptoms and the provider diagnosed mechanical low back pain. May 2016 private treatment records noted the Veteran’s reports that low back pain began in the Army while carrying significant weight. The provider diagnosed chronic low back pain and included a comment that the Veteran’s chronic multiple musculoskeletal concerns were related to heavy lifting and strenuous activity while in the Army. June 2017 private treatment records show a current diagnosis of degenerative disc disease at L5-S1. A June 2017 private orthopedic evaluation diagnosed chronic low back pain and L5-S1 moderate disc space narrowing. The provider noted that there was no history of acute injury but that the Veteran’s reported repetitive overuse while in the military and persistent low back pain since that time. A November 2016 VA examination diagnosed degenerative disc disease. The examiner found noted the Veteran’s reports of gradual onset of back pain in service associated with marching with heavy packs and chronic pain since that time. The examiner opined that the current back disability was not incurred in/caused by the Veteran’s November 2002 back sprain. As a rationale, the examiner stated that while service records showed back treatment, the file did not contain a separation examination to suggest findings of back pain at separation. The examiner then stated that considering medical documentation there was insufficient evidence to suggest chronic ongoing complaints. The Board finds that the opinion is inadequate as it disregards the Veteran’s lay statements regarding persistent back pain merely because they are unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. In so finding, the Board particularly notes the examiner’s reliance on the lack of a separation examination to confirm the Veteran’s reports of ongoing pain. The opinion is therefore inadequate, and the Board assigns it no probative weight. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). At the March 2021 Board hearing the Veteran reported that he was field medic with the infantry and as part of his duties carried packs of 165/175 pounds while conducting marches and training for deployment. He reported that he began having pain in his back at that time and that it continued throughout service. He reported that his back pain persisted after service and that he had no interceding injuries. He also reported that after service, he went to school to become a medical assistant. Finally, the Veteran opined that his current back disability was due to his back strain in service, stating as a rationale that the pain had persisted since the initial injury, and that his back pain was localized to the area of the back that was injured in service. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report the onset and persistence of lay-observable symptoms such as pain. The undersigned has also had the opportunity to observe the Veteran and finds him/her to be credible. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Moreover, as the Veteran has medical training both in-service as a field medic and after service as a medical assistant, the Board finds that he is also competent to offer an opinion regarding the etiology of his current back disability. The Board therefore accords his statements significant probative weight. The Board therefore finds that the competent evidence of record indicates that the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease was caused by back strain in service. Again, the November 2016 VA opinion has been found to be inadequate. However, the Veteran submitted a competent opinion that his current back disability was due to his in-service injury, specifically noting the lack of subsequent back injury, his persistent pain since service and the location of the pain as the basis of his opinion. The opinion is supported by service treatment records noting gradual onset of low back pain and a diagnosis of lumbar strain in service as well as private treatment records indicating that there was no interceding back injury after service and that the Veteran’s current low back pain was associated with heavy lifting in the Army. There is simply no basis in the record upon which the Board can dissociate the Veteran’s current back disability from the documented back symptoms in service. The Board therefore finds that the competent evidence of record indicates that the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine was caused by service and therefore, service connection is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Arnold 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.