Citation Nr: 21026306 Decision Date: 04/30/21 Archive Date: 04/30/21 DOCKET NO. 11-34 375 DATE: April 30, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's right shoulder disability is granted. VETERAN’S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that he should be service connected for his right shoulder disability because it had its clinical onset during his active service. Specifically, the Veteran reported that he injured his right shoulder when he:(1) exited from a plane while he parachuting; (2) fell down while running bleachers during physical training; (3) fell off a vehicle after being electrocuted; and (4) slipped down a 30 foot hill and fell into a creek bed with 700 pounds of gear. See March 2018 Board Hearing Trans. pp. 8, 12, 14 and 23. Additionally, the Veteran reported that he has continued to experience pain and functional limitations ever since. See April 2011 Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran also explained that that he did not seek medical attention in service for his right shoulder because if it was not broken, the medical staff would give him Motrin and tell him to come back. See December 2011 VA Form 9. Alternatively, the Veteran contends that his service-connected left shoulder disability caused and/or aggravated his right shoulder disability. Specifically, the Veteran explained that in 2014, he was diagnosed with frozen shoulder of his left shoulder and that he began to overcompensate for his left shoulder pain by overusing his right shoulder. See March 2018 Board Hearing Trans. p. 30. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has experienced chronic right shoulder pain, currently diagnosed as related to mild acromioclavicular joint degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder, since service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for the Veteran’s right shoulder disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1989 to February 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeal (Board) on appeal from a February 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran selected a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge on his December 2011 Notice of Disagreement. In March 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing and a transcript of the hearing is of record. In September 2019, the Veteran was sent notice that the VLJ who conducted his March 2018 hearing had retired from the Board and that his appeal would, therefore, be assigned to a new VLJ. He was further informed of his right to testify at a new hearing. The Veteran did not respond to this notice. Accordingly, Board will proceed by adjudicating the appeal based on the evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. § 7107(c); 38 C.F.R. § 20.707. In May 2018 and November 2019, the Board remanded this issue. This case has now returned to the Board for readjudication. Entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's right shoulder disability is granted. Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for the right shoulder disability is warranted in the instant case. Turning to the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran’s right shoulder disability was confirmed by the VA examiners. See VA Examinations dated October 2010, August 2011, August 2015, March 2019, and January 2021. Next, the Board finds that the evidence of record demonstrates an in-service incurrence of his right shoulder disability. Specifically, the Veteran has continuously stated that his shoulder injury occurred when he: (1) exited from a plane while he parachuting; (2) fell down while running bleachers during physical training; (3) fell off a vehicle after being electrocuted; and (4) slipped down a 30 foot hill and fell into a creek bed with 700 pounds of gear. See March 2018 Board Hearing Trans. pp. 8, 12, 14 and 23. Further, the Veteran reported that he has continued to experience pain and functional limitations in the right shoulder ever since service. See April 2011 Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran explained that he did not seek medical attention in service for his right shoulder because if it was not broken, the medical staff would give him Motrin and tell him to come back. See December 2011 VA Form 9. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not demonstrate complaints of or treatment for right shoulder pain, specifically. However, at the Veteran’s separation examination, the Veteran reported swollen, aching, and painful joints. See November 1993 Report of Medical History. As a layperson, the Veteran is competent to report on all things which he has personal knowledge derived from his own senses, including discussing his continuous symptoms of experiencing right shoulder pain. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). The Board finds the Veteran’s reports of the onset of pain in service, and continuous symptoms of right shoulder pain since his service to be credible in the instant case. Lastly, regarding a link between the Veteran’s right shoulder disability and service, the Board finds that, as reported by the Veteran, he developed chronic right shoulder pain during service and it has continued to the present. See November 1993 Report of Medical History and April 2011 Notice of Disagreement. Additionally, as stated above, the Veteran is competent to identify his continuous right shoulder pain since service. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465. More importantly, the October 2010 examiner opined that the Veteran’s right shoulder disability was related to service. See October 2010 VA Examination. In addition to the Veteran’s statements and the positive nexus opinion, there is negative opinion evidence against the claim. The Board, however, affords the negative VA opinions little probative weight because the examiners failed to address the Veteran’s contentions regarding continuity of right shoulder pain. The Board acknowledges that the August 2011, August 2015, March 2019, and January 2021 VA examiners opined that the Veteran’s right shoulder disability was not related to service. However, the August 2011, August 2015, and March 2019 examiners failed to adequately consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the in-service injuries and the continuity of his right shoulder pain. These examiners relied on the absence of in-service complaints of right shoulder injury during medical treatment for those incidents. Further, the January 2021 examiner failed to adequately address the Veteran’s contention that his service-connected left shoulder disability caused and/or aggravated his right shoulder disability. At the March 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran explained that in 2014, he was diagnosed with frozen shoulder of his left shoulder and began to overcompensate for his left shoulder pain by overusing his right shoulder. See March 2018 Board Hearing Trans. p. 30. However, the January 2021 examiner failed to address this contention and the Veteran’s contentions regarding his continuous right shoulder pain since service. The Board finds that these opinions are inadequate because they failed to adequately address the Veteran’s raised theories of entitlement and lay statements regarding his right shoulder pain. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007). Based on the Veteran’s credible lay statements attesting to the development of a chronic condition in service, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. 38 U.S.C.S. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a).   S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S.Foster, 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.