Citation Nr: 21025148 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 12-12 918 DATE: April 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for right shoulder is denied. Service connection for left shoulder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Veteran’s right shoulder condition did not have its onset during service and is not otherwise is not related to service. 2. The preponderance of the evidence shows the Veteran’s left shoulder condition was not incurred until years after service, is not etiologically related to service, and is not secondary to a service-connected disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for right shoulder condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 2. The criteria for service connection for left shoulder condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1968 to March 1971, including combat service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran provided testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in February 2018. In August 2019, the Board remanded this case for further development. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting in a disease or injury that is incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 U.S.C. § 3.303. To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical and lay evidence, with due consideration to VA’s policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts in each individual case. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Secondary service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by an established service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (2015); see also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). 1. Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder condition. The Veteran asserts he injured his right shoulder during active service. Specifically, he contends that, while serving at Fort Knox, Kentucky, he fell off the top of a locker and landed on his right shoulder. The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for a right shoulder condition that developed during active duty service. Specifically, he states that he fell off the top of a locker and landed on his right shoulder. See February 2018 Hr’g Tr. at 10-12. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of right shoulder strain. See December 2019 Shoulder and Arm DBQ. As previously noted, in August 2019, the Board remanded this issue for additional development, to include a VA examination and opinion. The December 2019 VA examiner opined, that the Veteran’s right shoulder disability is less likely than not due to an inservice event or injury, to include an injury on May 20, 1968. The VA examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s initial injury was from a fall from the top of an eight feet tall locker in May 1968. The VA examiner noted, that at the time of the event, the Veteran reported pain to his right shoulder and bruise; however, x-ray results showed no fractures. See May 1968 STR. The examiner reasoned, that viewing the x-rays from 1968 to 2008, the Veteran’s shoulders showed no arthritis or mild arthritis. The examiner remarked that the 2008 right shoulder x-ray noted, “mild osteoarthritic degenerative changes with narrowing of the glenohumeral joint space and the AC joint spur.” The examiner reasoned that had the Veteran had a significant injury to his shoulders in 1968, from his fall from the lockers, then the x-rays done 30-40 years later should have showed significant arthritis at least in 1997 when the first x-ray was ordered for his left shoulder and in 2008, when the right shoulder x-ray was done. The VA examiner also noted, that at the March 1971 discharging examination, the Veteran did not report injury or pain to the right shoulder or the left shoulder. See March 1971 Discharge Examination report; December 2019 Shoulder and Arm DBQ. The VA examiner concluded that the progression of the Veteran’s shoulder DJD and rotator cuff disease was a natural process of aging in the Veteran or due to another incident not related to the fall in 1968. The Board acknowledges that service treatment records indicate the Veteran injured right shoulder jumping from floor to top of locker; however, the x-rays at the time indicated no fracture. See May 1968 STR. Additionally, the Board acknowledges and has considered the Veteran’s assertions that he believed his right shoulder injury was caused by his military service; specifically, his report of falling off a locker and landing on his right shoulder. See February 2018 Hr’g Tr. at 8. Additionally, the Board considered the Veteran’s reports of his duties during active duty service. Id. 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). Here, in light of the examiner’s cogent rationale and the contemporaneous evidence dated at the time of the Veteran’s discharge from active duty, the Board finds his report of recurrent right shoulder symptoms since service as not consistent with the objective evidence of record and thus not credible. As such, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a right shoulder condition and must be denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder condition. The Veteran asserts that he developed his left shoulder condition secondary to his right shoulder condition. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that his left shoulder condition developed as a result of overuse and compensating for his right shoulder injury. See February 2018 Hr’g Tr.; see also March 2012 NOD. As noted, the Veteran is not service connected for a right shoulder condition. As such, entitlement to service connection for left shoulder on a secondary basis to his right shoulder condition is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Nevertheless, while the Veteran has not claimed that his left shoulder condition is due to or incurred in service, the Board will address all theories of entitlement raised by the record, to include direct service connection While the Veteran’s May 1968 service treatment records show a right shoulder, the Veteran’s STRs are silent for any complaints, treatments or diagnosis of a left shoulder condition or left shoulder symptomatology during service. The December 2019 VA examiner provided a negative nexus opinion regarding direct service connection. The VA examiner opined, that the Veteran’s left shoulder disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by active duty service, to include the May 1968 injury during service. The VA examiner reasoned, that following the x-rays over the course of the records from 1968 to 2008, the Veteran’s x-rays of the shoulders showed no arthritis or mild osteoarthritis. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran’s left shoulder x-ray done in 1997, noted minimal degenerative arthritic changes at the acromioclavicular joint and no other arthritic changes. See February1997 Radiology Report. The VA examiner reasoned, that had the Veteran had a significant injury to his shoulders in 1968 with his fall from the lockers, then x-rays done 30-40 years later should have shown significant arthritis at least in 1997, when the first x-ray is recorded for the left shoulder. The examiner noted, the Veteran did not report injury or pain to his left shoulder at his March 1971 discharge; therefore, the progression of his shoulder degenerative joint disease and rotator cuff disease was a natural process of aging in the Veteran or due to another incident not related to his reported fall in service. See December 2019 Shoulder and Arm DBQ. Given the foregoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for left shoulder condition and must be denied. 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.