Citation Nr: 22012145 Decision Date: 03/02/22 Archive Date: 03/02/22 DOCKET NO. 14-29 901 DATE: March 2, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's back disability began during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for service connection for a back disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty from September 1974 to September 1977. He testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned in June 2021. A transcript is of record. This issue was previously before the Board in September 2021, at which time it was remanded for further development Entitlement to service connection for a back disability. The Veteran asserts that his back disability had onset in, or is otherwise related to his active-duty service. He contends back pain began during active service and has continued to present. See November 2009 Veteran's Statement (outlining history of back treatment following service.) 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. After review of the lay and medical evidence, the Board finds such to be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran has a current back disability that began during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). While VA examiners and private clinicians have not concurred on an exact diagnosis, the Board finds that there is no question that a back disability currently exists. See generally June 2011 VA Examination Report, February 2012 VA Examination Report, June 2021 T.C. Statement. The Veteran's service treatment records indicate that he was treated for low back pain and diagnosed with lumbar myositis while in service. See May 1977 July 1977 Health Records. Upon examination at separation from service in July 1977, the Veteran's spine was noted as normal. However, on a July 1977 Report of Medical History, the Veteran reported recurrent back pain. As previously noted in the Board's decisions, the Veteran has undergone numerous VA examinations. See June 2011 VA Examination Report, February 2012 VA Examination Report, October 2020 VA Examination Report, November 2021 VA Examination Report. However, the Board finds that the examination reports and addendum opinions of record do not adequately reflect consideration of the Veteran's lay statements regarding in-service onset and private chiropractic treatment following service, as well as buddy statements of record supporting the Veteran's assertion that he has suffered from back pain since service. The Board affords the VA medical opinions of record little probative value as they fail to consider the Veteran's competent statements regarding his back pain and are generally unsatisfactory for claims purposes. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). During his June 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that, following service, he worked for 30 years as a licensed nursing home administrator, acute care administrator, and director of operations for a midsized hospital. The Veteran stated that following service, he was under the care of a chiropractor for a period of time and also sought guidance regarding self-management of his back pain from his co-workers and other colleagues, which was never documented. In a June 2021 statement, T.C., a physical therapist and co-worker of the Veteran, stated that she had provided a variety of treatment modalities to the Veteran over the course of 20 years as his colleague. She noted that she did not officially document these services as the Veteran was a friend. Further, in a July 2021 statement, P.I., the Veteran's spouse, noted that the Veteran was under chiropractic care for his in-service back issues when they met in 1978 and that these issues continued to the present. The Board finds the Veteran's statements, as well as those from T.C. and P.I., to be competent and credible and affords these statements great probative value. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Based on the above, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current back disability arose in service. (Continued on Next Page) Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for a back disability is warranted based on in-service incurrence. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The benefit sought on appeal is granted. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Bristow Williams, 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.