Citation Nr: 22013510 Decision Date: 03/09/22 Archive Date: 03/09/22 DOCKET NO. 11-34 055 DATE: March 9, 2022 ORDER The request to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for lumbar strain is granted. Service connection for lumbar strain is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran did not appeal a January 2007 rating decision which denied service connection for lumbar strain, but evidence received since then raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 2. The Veteran's lumbar strain is proximately due to his service-connected left knee disabilities. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for reopening a previously denied claim for service connection for lumbar strain have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104 (a), 3.156, 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103. 2. The criteria for service connection for lumbar strain as secondary to service-connected left knee disabilities are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from August 1995 to February 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2010 rating decision. The Veteran had requested a Board hearing as part of his appeal. However, given that the claim is being fully granted, the hearing request is moot. Previously Denied Claim To reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim, new and material evidence must be submitted by the claimant or secured by VA with respect to that claim since the last final denial, regardless of the basis for that denial. VA defines "new and material evidence" as follows. "New evidence" means evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers, and "material evidence" means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). To warrant reopening, the new evidence must neither be cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id.; see Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010) (holding that there is a "low threshold" for reopening). The credibility of the evidence is presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). Historically, the Veteran was denied service connection for lumbar strain in a January 2007 rating decision. He had asserted that his lumbar strain was secondary to his service-connected left knee disability, but the rating decision stated that such a nexus has not been established. He did not appeal that decision, and therefore it became final. Since the January 2007 rating decision, additional evidence has been received, including VA treatment records from November 2010 which suggest that knee pain caused an abnormal stance, which then caused back pain. This evidence is new because it was not part of the record at the time of the prior denial. It is also material because it relates to the previously unestablished element of a link between the Veteran's lumbar spine disability and his service-connected left knee. Therefore, new and material evidence has been received and the claim is reopened. Service Connection The Veteran contends that his lumbar strain is secondary to his service-connected knee disabilities. (Continued on the next page) A December 2006 VA examiner diagnosed lumbar strain, but could not comment on the link between that disability and the service-connected left knee without resorting to speculation. The Board does not find this opinion to be probative because the examiner's rationale for the speculative opinion was that there was no particular evidence or history to suggest that the low back strain was a direct result of the left knee. This finding ignored VA treatment records from January 2006 which noted the Veteran was developing back pain, and that he had an abnormal gait. The ultimate conclusion drawn by his treating physician was low back pain, probably secondary to gait changes. As noted above, additional records from November 2010 also indicated a link between back pain, knee pain, and an abnormal stance. Upon review of the record, the Board finds there is at least an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence to whether the Veteran's lumbar strain is proximately due to his service-connected left knee. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for lumbar strain is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Shamil Patel, 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.