Citation Nr: A26017993 Decision Date: 02/27/26 Archive Date: 02/27/26 DOCKET NO. 201002-112605 DATE: February 27, 2026 ORDER Service connection for a lumbar spine disorder, to include degenerative arthritis, is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether a lumbar spine disorder, to include degenerative arthritis, is etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, a lumbar spine disorder, to include degenerative arthritis, has been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 1155, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.2, 20.202, 20.302, 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310 (2025). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from November 1973 to November 1975. His appeal stems from a March 2020 rating decision in which the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), in relevant part, denied his claim for a lumbar spine disorder, then characterized as degenerative arthritis of the spine. Subsequently in October 2020, he appealed to the Board via a VA Form 10182 in accordance with the Veterans Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). In his October 2020 appeal, the Veteran requested that his claim be placed on the Hearing Review Docket. As such, he testified in July 2024 at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in connection with his claim. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the claims file. Ultimately, the Board has considered his case based on the evidence of record at the time of the March 2020 rating decision currently on appeal, as well as all evidence submitted alongside and within 90 days of his July 2024 hearing before the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.302. Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the claimant. Here, the March 2020 rating decision on appeal found that the Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis of the spine. The decision also acknowledged that his service treatment records (STRs) included complaints of low back pain while on active duty. These favorable findings will not be disturbed. Therefore, the first two elements of service connection- a current diagnosis and in-service incurrence- have been met and the determinative question is whether the Veteran's current lumbar spine disorder stemmed directly from his in-service back injury. As to nexus, the evidence is in conflict as to whether a nexus exists between his current lumbar spine disorder and his in-service back pain. In this regard, in a March 2020 VA examination, the Veteran reported injuring his back when slipping on an icy road while marching during basic training in 1973. He described subsequent in-service episodes of back pain in 1974 and post-separation episodes in 1975 while working at a furniture store and in 1976. The VA examiner diagnosed degenerative arthritis of the spine and degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine but opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's back disorder was incurred in or caused by service. The examiner acknowledged that December 1973 STRs documented low back pain without a history of trauma but noted that the Veteran worked in a very demanding occupational job in a furniture shop and suffered an injury at that point. The examiner offered that the Veteran's lumbar spine disorder was not attributable to his in-service back pain but instead stemmed from his significant occupational injury. However, the Veteran is competent to report symptoms capable of lay observation, such as back pain, and the examiner did not address his lay report of recurrent back pain in service, to include while serving in Germany in 1974. As such, the March 2020 VA examination and medical opinion weighs against the Veteran's claim and is assigned lesser probative value. On the other hand, the Veteran testified in July 2024 that he consistently had episodes of back pain and locking since his in-service back injury. To this end, he indicated that he initially injured his back while marching in basic training. He said that he hit his tailbone on an icy ridge and, from that point on, had problems with his back. He described additional in-service and post-separation episodes of back pain, including while serving on active duty in Germany, but reported that he did not seek treatment for all of them. He recounted that his chiropractor documented subluxation and told him that he had severe trauma a long time ago that caused his back problems. The Veteran is competent to report events such as his service history and visits with clinicians. Similarly, he is competent to report symptoms capable of lay observation such as back pain. However, he is not competent to offer an etiological opinion as to the relationship between his current lumbar spine disorder and his in-service back pain. Therefore, while his testimony weighs in favor of his claim, his etiological assertions are assigned lesser probative value. Next, in July 2024, a private clinician opined that his lumbar spine disorder was more likely than not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. To this end, the clinician recounted the Veteran's history of injuring his back when slipping on ice in December 1973 and acknowledged that the injury was exacerbated on several subsequent occasions during his active military service. The clinician observed that the Veteran suffered exacerbations of his lower back injury over the more than 8 years during which he was treated by the clinician. The clinician concluded, based on the Veteran's history, examinations, and response to treatment, that his service-related injury in 1973 directly contributed to his current lumbar spine disorder. The July 2024 private medical opinion is adequate because the clinician thoroughly reviewed the claims file, discussed the evidence, to include the relationship between the Veteran's lumbar spine disorder and in-service back pain, and provided a thorough supporting rationale for the conclusion reached. Therefore, the opinion is assigned high probative value and weighs in favor of the Veteran's claim. As there is evidence weighing both for and against the claim, it places the evidence at least in approximate balance on the question of whether the Veteran's lumbar spine disorder stemmed from his in-service back injury. For this reason, after resolving reasonable doubt in his favor, service connection for a lumbar spine disorder, to include degenerative arthritis, is granted. Because the Board is granting service connection for a lumbar spine disorder on a direct basis, all other theories of service connection are rendered moot. Finally, the Veteran did not raise any other issues in his October 2020 VA Form 10182, nor were any other issues reasonably raised by the record for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). John R. Doolittle, II Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Spigelman 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.