Citation Nr: 22010557 Decision Date: 02/23/22 Archive Date: 02/23/22 DOCKET NO. 18-15 215 DATE: February 23, 2022 ORDER Service connection for a low back disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence weighs persuasively against finding the current spinal stenosis is related to the Veteran's service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a low back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from September to December 1950. 1. Service connection for a low back disability Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits, a Veteran must show: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service" also known as the "nexus" requirement. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Based on the evidence, the Board finds the criteria for service connection for a low back disability have not been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The evidence shows a current low back disability and involvement in an in-service accident. Private and VA treatment records show diagnosis of spinal stenosis. The June 2021 examiner diagnosed spinal stenosis and laminectomy of L2-L5 with lateral fusion. The Veteran reported injuring his back in a train accident during service. He provided an article about a troop train accident that killed and injured many soldiers in September 1950, a few days after the Veteran's service began. He also provided a statement from a person who witnessed the Veteran at the site of the train accident. The Board finds this evidence shows the Veteran was involved in the train accident in service. Accordingly, there is evidence to establish the first and second elements of service connection. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366. However, the evidence does not reach the level of relative equipoise to show that the Veteran's spinal stenosis is related to the in-service train accident. During the Board hearing, the Veteran reported that his back started hurting him shortly after discharge from service and hurt off and on, but it did not bother him much and he did not seek treatment between the time of service and around 2000. He reported seeking treatment at VA for his shoulder in 1951, but the first evidence of treatment for the back is from 1997, more than 45 years after service. In October and December 2021 opinions, a medical expert concluded that the Veteran's spinal stenosis is less likely than not related to service. The expert explained that although the Veteran was involved in a train accident in service, he did not complain of back problems until 46 years later, despite the fact that he complained of shoulder problems shortly after service. The expert further explained that spinal stenosis is due to degeneration, not an injury. The expert considered the Veteran's reports of back pain on and off for years after service but found the back problems must have been of little concern, because the Veteran did not seek care. (Continued on the next page) While the lack of treatment records does not negate the Veteran's reports of back pain. The significant amount of time between service and the diagnosis of spinal stenosis along with the Veteran's advanced age at the time of diagnosis support the expert's finding that spinal stenosis was degenerative, rather than trauma related. The Board understands the Veteran's contention that his current back disability is due to service, but he does not have the requisite medical education or training to provide competent evidence of the cause of a complex musculoskeletal disability, like spinal stenosis, and the Board must rely on those with medical expertise. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Unfortunately, the greater weight of the evidence is against finding a connection between the in-service train accident and current spinal stenosis. The Board is grateful for the Veteran's honorable service, and this decision is not meant to detract from that service. However, given the record before it, the Board finds the evidence in this case does not reach the level of relative equipoise, and service connection for a low back disability is not warranted at this time. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.P. Armstrong 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.