Citation Nr: 22018192 Decision Date: 03/28/22 Archive Date: 03/28/22 DOCKET NO. 17-26 845 DATE: March 28, 2022 ORDER Service connection for a lumbar spine disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran began experiencing symptoms of his current lumbar spine disability during service, and he has continued to experience those symptoms since his separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 2000 to October 2004. This current matter was remanded by the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) in February 2019, September 2021, and December 2021 for further development. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires competent evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) the incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury during service; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Additionally, service connection can also be established through application of a statutory presumption for chronic diseases when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If a chronic disease is not manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation of service, then, generally, a showing of "continuity of symptoms" after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Furthermore, a layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The Veteran contends that he began experiencing lower back pain in service and that such symptoms have continued since then. His service treatment records are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis of any back conditions. However, at a July 2004 post-deployment examination, he reported experiencing medical problems for which he did not seek treatment. Unfortunately, the medical issues were not listed. Review of the Veteran's VA treatment records show that he has a current diagnosis of degenerative joint disease of his lumbar spine. Also, his VA treatment records show that he has experienced lower back pain numerous times since his separation from service. Specifically, at June, July, and December 2012 VA outpatient treatment session, he described lower back pain for at least 5 years. Further, in a written statement from April 2017, he reported that he experienced back pain during service numerous times but that he did not seek treatment for the pain because he was told to "suck it up" or that "it's not that bad." During the course of this appeal, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2019, and an addendum opinion was obtained in September 2021. These opinions, however, were found to be inadequate by the Board (for reasons previously discussed in the prior Board remands) and, thus, will not be discussed at length herein. In January 2022, another addendum opinion was obtained, wherein the examiner opined that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability was less likely than not related to his active service. The examiner explained that there was no evidence that the Veteran had a lumbar spine condition in service and that he had specifically denied experiencing back pain at his August 2004 separation examination. The examiner further explained that the first documented evidence of the Veteran having a back condition was in November 2009, more than 5 years after his separation from service. Regarding the Veteran's lay statements that his back pain initially onset during service, the examiner simply explained that the statements were not supported by the medical evidence. The Board cannot ignore or disregard the VA examiner's medical conclusions but is free to assess medical evidence and is not compelled to accept a medical opinion. Willis v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 66 (1991); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992). Here, the January 2022 addendum opinion did not give due consideration to the Veteran's competent report of his onset of symptoms in service and their continuity thereafter. Rather, the examiner disregarded the statements due to lack of contemporaneous documentation in the Veteran's service treatment records and placed more weight on the first documented report of lower back pain. As noted above, as a lay person, the Veteran is competent to give evidence about observable symptoms such as pain and onset of symptoms. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465. Further, lay evidence concerning continuity of symptoms after service, if credible, is ultimately competent regardless of the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the current appeal, the Veteran has consistently reported that he began experiencing lower back pain in service and that he has continued to experience this pain since his separation from service. As such, the Board finds his competent lay statements are credible and affords them more probative value than the January 2022 addendum opinion. Thus, the Board finds that the evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran began experiencing symptoms of his current lumbar spine disability during service and has continued to experience those symptoms since then. Accordingly, service connection for a lumbar spine disability is granted. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Benson, Associate 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.