Citation Nr: 21032702 Decision Date: 05/27/21 Archive Date: 05/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-43 739 DATE: May 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran's cervical spine disability is related to an in-service injury or disease. Arthritis did not manifest itself to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 2. The evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability is related to an in-service injury or disease. Arthritis did not manifest itself to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from November 1982 to November 1986. In February 2019, the Board remanded the issue for additional development. The Board finds that there was substantial compliance with the remand directives on appeal as discussed below. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38C.F.R. §3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, a preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). For Veterans with 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic diseases may be presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Arthritis is on the list of diseases presumed to have been incurred in-service and receives a one-year presumption. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability The Veteran contends that his cervical and lumbar spine disorders are related to his time in-service. Specifically, the Veteran asserts the impact of thirty-seven parachute jumps and ruck sack marches in-service caused the onset of her cervical and lumbar spine disorders. After a review of the record, the Bord respectfully disagrees. Service treatment records (STRs) do not reveal any complaints diagnosis or treatments for a lumbar or cervical spine disorder. At an examination prior to discharge, the Veteran did not report, nor was he diagnosed with a lumbar or cervical spine disorder. VA outpatient treatment records reveal that the Veteran reported the onset of his neck pain in 2004 while working as a steel worker post-service. Private treatment records reveal that the Veteran underwent regular treatment for his lumbar and cervical spine disorders during the period on appeal. Of significance, in March 2004, the Veteran underwent a procedure for cervical myelopathy. April 2007 private treatment radiological findings reveal congenital narrowing of the canal through the cervical spine with no significant disc herniation observed. In an October 2015 VA back examination, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with degenerative arthritis of the spine. The Veteran reported extensive treatment in the private sector for his lumbar spine. The examiner did not offer an opinion concerning the pathology of the Veteran's disorder. In an October 2015 VA neck examination, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with degenerative arthritis of the spine. The Veteran reported extensive treatment in the private sector for his cervical spine. Invertebral disc syndrome, ad spinal fusion. The examiner did not offer an opinion concerning the pathology of the Veteran's disorder. In a November 2015 VA medical opinion, the examiner reported that she reviewed the Veteran's STRs, but did not review his private medical records. The examiner opined that she could not offer an opinion concerning a pathology for the Veteran's lumbar or cervical spine disorder without resulting to mere speculation as the Veteran's private treatment records were not available. In an October 2019 VA addendum opinion, the examiner opined that Veteran's cervical spine disorder is less likely than not incurred in or caused by an in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner explained that the Veteran reported no neck pain in-service as indicted by his STRs. The examiner also noted that the Veteran did not report his pain beginning until 2004 while working in the physically demanding occupation as a steel worker post-service. The examiner noted that while the Veteran did report injuring his head during service, the impact was not great enough to cause damage to the Veteran's physical structures in his neck. The examiner also noted that there is nothing in the records to indicate a neck injury in a parachute jump as the impact of thirty-seven jumps in the 1980's would not cause the sudden onset of neck pain in 2004. The examiner also indicated that ruck sack marches in the 1980's would not cause the sudden onset of neck pain in 2004. In an October 2019 VA addendum opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran's back disorder is less likely than not incurred in or caused by an in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner explained that the Veteran reported no back pain in-service as indicted by his STRs. The examiner also noted that the Veteran reported the onset of his pain as approximately 2000. The examiner noted that the earliest evidence of back pain submitted by Veteran did not occur until 2012 which is approximately twenty-six years post-service. The examiner also noted that the Veteran was employed post-service as a steel worker which is most likely the cause of the onset of his back disorder. In an August 2020 VA addendum opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran's neck disorder is less likely than not incurred in or caused by an injury, event, or illness in-service. The examiner explained that the Veteran reported not having any neck pain in-service as indicated by his STRs. The examiner also noted that the Veteran reported the acute onset of neck pain in 2004 while he was employed as a steel worker which is a physically demanding job. The examiner also noted that while the Veteran did injure his head in-service, the impact was not enough to result in damage to the physical structures of his neck. The examiner explained that there is nothing in the records to indicate a neck injury in a parachute jump as the impact of thirty-seven jumps in the 1980's would not cause the sudden onset of neck pain in 2004. The examiner also indicated that ruck sack marches in the 1980's would not cause the sudden onset of neck pain in 2004. In an August 2020 VA addendum opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran's back disorder is less likely than not incurred in or caused by an injury, event, or illness in-service. The examiner explained that the Veteran reported not having any neck pain in-service as indicated by his STRs. The examiner also explained that the Veteran reported the onset of his back pain began in 2000; however, the evidence the Veteran submitted records reveal that the earliest evidence of the Veteran's back pain was not until 2012. The examiner noted that the Veteran was engaged post-service as a steel worker which is physically demanding work. She opined that the Veteran's post-service employment is most likely the cause of the onset of the Veteran's back disorder. The record contains a September 2020 private opinion from a chiropractic clinic. The author reports that the Veteran had been under his care since 2012, for cervical and lumbar arthritis. The author provided the opinion that the back and neck pathology more likely than not was related to active service. November 2020 MRI findings reveal displaced intervertebral disc, cervical spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. The Board also reviewed the Veteran's lay statements asserting that the onset of his lumbar or cervical spine disorder is related to his time in-service. Lay people are competent to report on matters observed or within their personal knowledge. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Therefore, the Veteran is competent to provide statements of symptoms which are observable to his senses. However, the Board must emphasize that the Veteran is not competent to interpret accurately clinical findings pertaining to a lumbar or cervical spine disorder as this requires highly specialized knowledge and training. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(1) (2018). See also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To summarize, the Veteran's STRs do not reveal any complaints, diagnosis, or treatments for a lumbar or cervical spine disorder. Furthermore, there is also no indication of any complaints or treatments for any lumbar or cervical spine disorder related to service or for several years post-service. See Mason v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the passage of many years between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is evidence against a claim of service connection). This premise is further evidenced by the fact that the Veteran did not submit a compensation and pension application for his service-related lumbar or cervical spine disorder until many years after separation from service. Therefore, the foregoing summary of the treatment record reveals no possibility for service connection for a lumbar or cervical spine disorder on a direct basis. As indicated above, the Veteran's STRs do not report any findings of a lumbar or cervical spine disorder. Furthermore, the Board acknowledges the most recent October 2019 examiner opinion, the Veteran reported no cervical spine pain in-service as indicted by his STRs. The Veteran also did not report his pain beginning until 2004 while working in the physically demanding occupation as a steel worker post-service. The examiner noted that while the Veteran did report injuring his head during service, the impact was not great enough to cause damage to the Veteran's physical structures in his neck. Furthermore, the examiner also noted that there is nothing in the records to indicate a neck injury in a parachute jump as the impact of thirty-seven jumps in the 1980's would not cause the sudden onset of neck pain in 2004. Lastly, the examiner also indicated that ruck sack marches in the 1980's would not cause the sudden onset of cervical spine pain in 2004. Regarding the Veteran's cervical spine disorder, the examiner explained that the Veteran reported no back pain in-service as indicted by his STRs. The examiner also noted that the Veteran did not report his pain beginning until approximately 2000. Furthermore, the earliest evidence of lumbar spine pain submitted by Veteran did not occur until 2012. Lastly, the examiner determined that the Veteran was employed post-service as a steel worker which is most likely the cause of the onset of his back disorder. In-fact, Veteran reported the acute onset of cervical spine pain in 2004 and the onset of his lumbar spine pain in 2000. As the claims file lacks evidence of a lumbar or cervical spine disorder in-service and immediately thereafter, the Board finds that the evidence of the record indicates that the Veteran's a lumbar or cervical spine disorder is less likely than not related to an injury, event, or occurrence in-service. As indicated by the record and examiner opinions, it is more likely that the onset of the Veteran's cervical and back disorders is related to his post-service employment as a steel worker. As a pathology for a lumbar or cervical spine disorder has not been shown to be related to the Veteran's time in-service, the Board finds that the clinical evidence does not support the Veteran's contentions. The Board has reviewed the private chiropractor's opinion, but finds it is not particularly persuasive. The "as likely as not" opinion is not supported by any rationale. The letter notes that treatment has been since 2012, makes not reference to review of any outside records, including service or post-service records. It is noted that review of those records, as set out above, first show the onset of neck and back complaints many years after service. Based on this evidence, the Board finds service connection is not warranted. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, the Board does not perceive an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the doctrine is not applicable, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Harris, Michael E. 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.