Citation Nr: 22018799 Decision Date: 03/30/22 Archive Date: 03/30/22 DOCKET NO. 14-16 872 DATE: March 30, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A lumbar spine disorder was not shown in service or many years thereafter; and the weight of the evidence is against finding that a lumbar spine disorder is etiologically related to active service. 2. A cervical spine disorder was not shown in service or many years thereafter; and the weight of the evidence is against finding that a cervical spine disorder is etiologically related to active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the Army from June 1971 to June 1974. The appeal originates from a November 2011 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The matter was remanded in May 2019 and December 2021 for VA examinations and addendum opinions. Examinations were obtained in December 2019, February 2021, and June 2021 as well as opinions in January 2022. There has been substantial compliance with the Remand directives. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) a disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases, such as arthritis, will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Veteran contends that he injured his back and neck in service and has had progressively worsening pain since then due to his physical duties as a heavy equipment truck driver (such as driving long distances and loading and unloading equipment). See August 2012 NOD; December 2019 VA Examination; May 2021 Correspondence; June 2021 VA Examination. The December 2019 and June 2021 examinations confirm diagnoses of degenerative arthritis and disc disease of the lumbar spine and cervical degenerative disc disease, arthritis, and spinal stenosis. Therefore, element (1) of Shedden is met. Service treatment records are silent for complaints, treatment, or diagnoses of back and neck disorders. The June 1974 separation exam reflects normal evaluation of the back and neck, and the Veteran stated that there had been no change in his health since entering service. Although he contends that he had in-service injuries and back and neck pain, he is not a credible historian (see discussion below.) Shedden element (2) is not met. Regarding a nexus or Shedden element (3), the January 2022 examiner opined that the Veteran's back and neck disorders are less likely as not related to service. The examiner acknowledged the lay contention that in-service duties such as lifting resulted in back and neck disorders. However, the examiner found no complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of such disorders in the service treatment records. The examiner noted that there was no profile status or record indicating an inability to perform duties due to back or neck conditions. The examiner found that the back and neck disorders were first documented in the early 2000s following a long history of work in a coke furnace and construction. The examiner determined that imaging of the lumbar and cervical spines contained radiological findings most consistent with the effects of aging with wear and tear decades after service and no evidence of a nexus to service. Consideration is given to the lay evidence, including the Veteran's assertion that he suffered in-service injuries and has had back and neck symptoms continuously since service. However, he is not a credible historian. As previously noted, he denied any change in health over his period of service at separation. Private treatment records show that he denied a history of back and neck trauma in December 2006. In January 2007, he reported the onset of back and neck pain five years prior (approximately 30 years after service). See November 2010 CAPRI. The Board affords greater weight to contemporaneous evidence and evidence closer in time to service than that offered during the appeal, as it is more likely an accurate reflection of his symptom history than subsequent contradictory statements. The Board has also considered the personal assertions of the Veteran that his current back and neck disorders are related to service. However, while lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), the specific issues in this case fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The disabilities at issue are not conditions that are readily amenable to probative lay comment regarding etiology. The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms, but there is no indication that he is competent to etiologically link any such symptoms to a current diagnosis. He is not shown to possess the requisite medical training, expertise, or credentials needed to render a diagnosis (such as arthritis) or a competent opinion as to medical causation. Nothing in the record demonstrates that he received any special training or acquired any medical expertise in evaluating his disorders. See King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the lay evidence does not constitute competent medical evidence and lacks probative value. The lay opinion is also outweighed by the January 2022 VA opinion. Accordingly, the claims of service connection for lumbar and cervical spine disabilities must be denied. Christopher J. O'Donnell Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Alhinnawi 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.