Citation Nr: 22010383 Decision Date: 02/23/22 Archive Date: 02/23/22 DOCKET NO. 17-30 453 DATE: February 23, 2022 ORDER Service connection for a neck disability (claimed as chronic neck pain) is denied. Service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability (claimed as bilateral shoulder pain) is denied. Service connection for sciatica is denied. VETERAN'S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that she has current neck and bilateral shoulder disabilities that are the result of "wear and tear" that she endured as a result of her military duties. She testified as to the onset of neck and shoulder symptoms, as well as sciatic symptoms, after service but contends that they were all incurred as a result of service, including duties as a bosun's mate working "with aids to navigation, hauling in lines, hauling in heavy buoy's [sic], chain, anchors, pulling, lifting, heaving, basically every day," at times dealing with over 50 pounds of weight. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's claimed neck and bilateral shoulder disabilities first manifested years after service and are not otherwise related to or incurred in service. 2. The Veteran does not have a current sciatic disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a neck disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral shoulder disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for a sciatic disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 2010 to August 2015. This matter is before the Board following her appeal of a June 2016 rating decision. In November 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned. The Board then remanded the appeal in February 2021. In a September 2021 rating decision, service connection for a thoracolumbar spine disability was established. Thus, that issue is no longer on appeal. Service Connection The Veteran has contended that she has current disabilities of the neck, shoulders, and sciatic nerves that were caused by or related to her duties in service and, in the case of the sciatic nerves, secondary to a thoracolumbar spine disability. Following a review of the record, unfortunately, the Board disagrees and finds that service connection is not warranted. The Board first notes that, generally, establishing service connection requires competent evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service precipitating disease, injury, or event; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the current disability and the in-service event. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Additionally, service connection may also be established for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). To substantiate secondary service connection, the record must show (1) evidence of a current disability, (2) evidence of a service-connected disability, and (3) medical nexus evidence establishing a connection between the current disability and the service-connected disability. Reiber v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 513, 516-17 (1995). Turning to the evidence of record in the instant case, the Board first notes that the Veteran does not have a current sciatic disability. In-service and post-service treatment records are silent for complaints or diagnoses related to the sciatic nerves and the August 2021 VA examiner found no evidence of a sciatic disability on physical examination or elsewhere in the record. Indeed, the Board notes that in conjunction with treatment for the low back, the Veteran affirmatively denied numbness and tingling in the legs and, while she reported radiating pain to the upper back and lower neck, she did not report radiating pain to the legs. See, e.g., April 2019 Private treatment note. Neurological review of systems, neurological examination, and examination of the lower extremities were also routinely normal. See September 2016, July 2017, August 2017, September 2017, November 2017, July 2018, February 2019, April 2019, June 2019, October 2020 Private treatment notes. The Board is cognizant that the Veteran testified as to leg symptoms during her Board hearing and she also reported bilateral foot tingling during May 2020 private treatment. Nevertheless, no leg symptoms, including foot tingling, were attributed to any sciatic or radicular disability (despite cervical radiculopathy being assessed in May 2020). The Board also finds probative that in May 2020, the Veteran herself reported that she had had "weightlifting and exercise injuries in the past few years." Regardless, leg symptoms of pain and foot tingling can have different causes and while the Veteran is competent to state that she experienced symptoms such as pain and tingling, as a lay person, she is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). In sum, the Board finds that there is no current sciatic disability. In the absence of evidence of a current disability for which service connection may be granted, there can be no grant of service connection under the law. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Turning to the claimed neck and shoulder disabilities, the record shows that the Veteran has current disabilities. Specifically, a September 2021 VA examiner diagnosed degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine and private records show treatment for cervicalgia. With respect to the shoulders, the September 2021 VA examiner declined to diagnose any shoulder disability, as the Veteran exhibited full range of motion and no pain during the examination. Instead, the examiner attributed the Veteran's shoulder pain to radiating neck pain. However, the Board notes that private physical therapy treatment notes dating during the appeal period show that restrictions/subluxations were noted in the right scapula, right shoulder, left scapula, and left shoulder, and that muscle spasms were observed in the left trapezius, right posterior trapezius, and right posterior shoulder. See, e.g., December 2020 Private treatment notes. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran has bilateral shoulder disability for purposes. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 866 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the Board finds the first service connection requirement of a current disability to be satisfied for both the neck and bilateral shoulder. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Next, with respect to in-service incurrence, service treatment records (STRs) are silent for neck or shoulder complaints or injury. However, during her November 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran described her duties in service, particularly her duties as a bosun's mate, and her belief that those duties caused wear and tear on her neck and shoulders. As the Veteran is competent to testify about things she experienced with her own senses including her service experience, the Board finds the Veteran's testimony regarding her in-service duties to be credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Accordingly, the Board finds the in-service incurrence of injury requirement to be satisfied for both the neck and the shoulders. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Finally, as to the remaining requirement for establishing service connection for a neck or bilateral shoulder disability, the Board unfortunately finds that a nexus between the Veteran's neck or bilateral shoulder disability and her service has not been established. In this regard, the September 2021 VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that any current neck or shoulder disability was incurred during service. In so finding, the examiner reiterated the belief that the Veteran's shoulder complaints are actually part of the neck disability and found probative the lack of neck or shoulder complaints in the STRs. The examiner, instead, found that the Veteran's neck disability and associated shoulder complaints began two years after service, noting a February 2017 private treatment note that documented the Veteran's report of neck pain that began two days prior to the visit when she woke up with a stiff and sore neck. While the September 2021 VA opinion is not flawless, it is adequate as it was based on review of the record, examination of the Veteran, supported by rationale, and consistent with the record. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). In particular, the opinion is consistent with the Veteran's own reports during February 2017 treatment regarding the onset of her neck symptoms a few days prior (and approximately 18 months following her separation from service), and during May 2020 treatment regarding the onset of shoulder pain three months prior (nearly 5 years following separation from service). Also probative is that in February 2017, the Veteran did not report a prior history of symptoms or injury or any belief that her symptoms could be related to her prior duties in service, unlike in April 2019, when the Veteran reported a prior history and incident in seeking treatment for back pain. Furthermore, to the extent that the Veteran has expressed her sincere belief that her in-service duties were the cause of her neck and shoulder symptoms because, given the timing of the onset of symptoms, "there would be no other cause that [she] could think of," she has not submitted any evidence in support of that association and the Board notes that the Veteran has worked since service as a laborer and, as noted during May 2020 treatment in which she reported shoulder, neck, and back pain, she "had weight lifting and exercise injuries in the past few years." Accordingly, as all of the requirements for service connection for neck, shoulder, and sciatic disabilities have not been met, service connection is not warranted, and those claims are denied. S. C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Fagan 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.