Citation Nr: 25006830 Decision Date: 05/20/25 Archive Date: 05/20/25 DOCKET NO. 14-25 717 DATE: May 20, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left elbow arthritis is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has a current diagnosis of left elbow arthritis, and the evidence is at least in relative equipoise regarding whether it is causally related to his active military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left elbow arthritis are 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 in the United States Army from March 1994 to February 2012. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a January 2013 rating decision. This matter was most recently before the Board in January 2025, at which time the claim was remanded for further development. See January 2025 BVA decision. 1. Entitlement to service connection for left elbow arthritis is granted. The Veteran seeks service connection for a left elbow condition. See, e.g., July 2012 VA 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim; July 2014 Form 9; February 2017 hearing transcript. Service connection will be granted if is shown that the Veteran suffers from a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, during active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases, including arthritis, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from active service; or, if they were noted in service (or within a presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309; see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with degenerative arthritis of the left elbow. March 2025 C&P exam (elbow and forearm disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ)). Accordingly, the first element necessary to establish service connection is met. The Veteran has a current disability. The second element necessary to establish service connection is that of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury. The Veteran's service treatment records show an injury to the left elbow incident to a parachute jump in 1996. August 2012 STR-Medical (2/9/1996 treatment note; 2/9/1996 radiologic consultation request/report). At his hearing, the Veteran testified that he injured his left elbow in a parachute jump. February 2017 hearing transcript. An in-service injury to the left elbow, therefore, is well documented. The second element necessary to find service connection is met. The final element necessary to establish service connection is that of a nexus between the in-service injury and the current disability. Arthritis is a chronic condition that may be found to be related to service if it was noted in service with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. The Veteran reported to the VA examiner that his current condition began in the 2000s incident to "general military training and exercises." March 2025 C&P exam (elbow and forearm conditions DBQ). This statement is slightly inconsistent, but not significantly so, with his hearing testimony in 2017. In the hearing, the Veteran described in detail that he incurred significant injuries after a partial parachute malfunction led to a hard landing in 1996. This incident included his left elbow, which has caused him problems "since then." At the time, however, his left elbow injury was among the least of the injuries he sustained from the jump. For that reason, it took a back seat to his other injuries, though he did seek care for it at times and was typically given Motrin or told to ice it. February 2017 hearing transcript. As a lay person, the Veteran is not competent to testify regarding the etiology of his left elbow arthritis. However, he is competent to testify regarding the onset and progression of the symptoms he experienced that ultimately formed the basis for the medical diagnosis. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when it is describing symptoms at the time that support a later diagnosis by a medical professional). The Board acknowledges negative medical evidence regarding the issue of nexus, most recently in a 2025 opinion. However, this negative opinion was based in part on the relative lack of continuing documentation of the Veteran's left elbow pain after the initial injury in 1996. See March 2025 C&P exam (medical opinion DBQ). The Veteran credibly explained why his left elbow pain, while persistent, was a lower priority for treatment than his other injuries. The Veteran's lay testimony regarding the onset and persistence of his left elbow pain places the evidence at least in relative equipoise regarding whether his current disability is related to the in-service injury. Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that there is a nexus between the Veteran's left elbow arthritis and his in-service injury. Accordingly, the final element necessary to establish service connection is met. Service connection for left elbow arthritis is granted. L. STEPANICK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Dunn 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.