Citation Nr: 21022541 Decision Date: 04/16/21 Archive Date: 04/16/21 DOCKET NO. 14-09 414 DATE: April 16, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a neck disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran’s current neck condition was caused by an in-service event or injury, nor was it caused or aggravated by his service-connected back disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a neck condition, to include as secondary to service connected back condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1977 to March 1985. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in June 2018. The Board remanded this claim for additional development in November 2018 and December 2020. Entitlement to service connection for neck condition claimed as upper back condition The Veteran seeks service connection for a neck condition that he asserts is the result of active duty service or alternatively due to his service-connected back. See June 2018 Hr’g Tr.; see also March 2014 Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans Appeals. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of intervertebral disc syndrome. See October 2019 Neck DBQ. In November 2018, the Board remanded this issue for additional development, to include a VA examination. See November 2018 BVA Decision. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2019. The VA examiner noted and acknowledged the Veteran’s reports that he carried heavy artillery equipment on his shoulders during service and that he did not go to sick call for minor symptoms. Additionally, the Veteran reported that he was in a motor vehicle accident in 1978 and 1979. The examiner noted, that for the June 1979 injury, the Veteran was determined to have injury to the left shoulder and knee and a skin-deep laceration, left knee and multiple abrasions. See February 1984 Examination Report. The examiner added that, post military, the Veteran worked on the space shuttle in Florida, worked construction and worked security. See October 2019 Neck DBQ. The VA examiner provided a negative opinion regarding direct service connection. Specifically, the October 2019 examiner reasoned, that the Veteran’s service treatment records did not reveal symptoms or findings referable to the cervical spine. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s diagnosis of degenerative disc disease came three decades after active duty service would be attributable to effects of natural aging and deterioration over time and unrelated to service activity. In December 2020, the Board remanded this issue for an addendum medical opinion to address secondary service-connection. See December 2020 BVA Remand. In the December 2020 VA addendum opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s neck condition, diagnosed as intervertebral disc syndrome, is less likely than not proximately due to his service-connected low back disability, including associated medications to treated his service-connected back disability. The examiner reasoned that there is no causal pathophysiological relationship of low back disability with intervertebral disc syndrome of the cervical spine. She added that the Veteran’s spinal segments are not contiguous. Additionally, the examiner opined, that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s intervertebral disc syndrome was aggravated by his service-connected low back disability. The examiner reasoned that there is no causal pathophysiological relationship of low back disability with intervertebral disc syndrome of the cervical spine. The VA examiner concluded that she did not find evidence that the Veteran’s intervertebral disc syndrome was caused by his back disability or any medications taken to treat his back condition and did not find evidence that the intervertebral disc syndrome was aggravated by his service-connected low back disability. In this case, the Board acknowledges that the May 1979 service treatment records show the Veteran was involved in a motor vehicle accident and complained of neck pain, with abrasions to his neck. See May 1979 STR. However, at the December 2011 physical therapy visit, the Veteran reported the onset and etiology and onset of his neck pain was approximately 4 months prior. Thus, as a finder of fact, the Board finds that the Veteran did not have recurrent neck problems since service. Additionally, at the March 2012 follow-up visit, the Veteran described only having pain for 6 months in his neck from an accident. See March 2012 Follow-up Narrative. The December 2011 examiner noted, the Veteran has mild degenerative changes. See December 2011 Physical Therapy Consultation. The Board has considered the Veteran’s regarding the onset and continuation of his neck condition. While the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, lay persons are not competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), and the issue in this case falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, the Veteran is not competent to provide an opinion as to causation for these particular claims. The Board finds that absent any competent evidence to contradict the October 2019 VA examiner's opinion and the December 2020 addendum opinion, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for neck condition, to include as secondary to service-connected back disability. The Board has considered the applicability of “benefit of the doubt” doctrine; however, the record does not demonstrate an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to warrant the resolution of this matter on that basis. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); see also Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jacquelynn M. Jordan, 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.