11-03 682
11-03 682
Board of Vet. App.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Veteran served on active duty from June 1978 to April 1983; claimed low back disorder due to an in-service parachute jump injury in October 1979.
- Service treatment records document a parachute-related back strain in October 1979 that resolved within a few days; separation exam (April 1983) showed no spinal abnormalities and no history of recurrent back pain.
- Post-service records show complaints of back pain beginning in 2002; diagnoses in later records include sacroiliitis and lumbar facet arthrosis.
- Multiple VA examinations and supplemental opinions were obtained (Dec. 2010; Feb. 2015 supplemental; Oct. 2015; Mar. 2017). Examiners attributed current degenerative findings to aging, genetics, obesity, and wear-and-tear, and found no nexus to the 1979 event.
- Board found VA satisfied its notice and duty-to-assist obligations, considered lay testimony (Veteran and spouse), and afforded greatest weight to competent medical opinions over lay etiology statements.
- The Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence is against service connection and denied the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder | Veteran: low back condition was caused by in-service parachute injury (many jumps; October 1979 strain) | VA/RO: service record shows only a transient strain; post-service degenerative disease is due to age/genetics/obesity; no nexus to service | Denied — preponderance of evidence against service connection |
| Adequacy of VA medical opinions and compliance with remand | Veteran/rep: exams/opinions failed to address lay evidence and examiner qualifications (PA not sufficiently expert) | VA/Board: exams were adequate, addressed lay statements, and examiner was competent; RO substantially complied with remand | Board found examinations and opinions adequate and remand complied with |
| Competency of lay evidence to establish nexus | Veteran: his testimony and spouse’s lay statement support continuity/causation | VA/Board: lay evidence competent for symptom reporting but not for medical diagnosis or causation | Lay evidence not sufficient to establish medical nexus; medical opinions control |
| Application of benefit-of-the-doubt rule | Veteran: uncertainty favors claim | VA/Board: evidence not in approximate balance; no reasonable doubt to resolve in claimant’s favor | Benefit-of-doubt not applied; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir.) (lay evidence competency vs. medical diagnosis/nexus)
- Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir.) (elements required for service connection)
- Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (Vet. App.) (preponderance and benefit-of-the-doubt rule)
- Parks v. Shinseki, 716 F.3d 581 (Fed. Cir.) (presumption of competence in VA selection of medical examiners)
- Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (Vet. App.) (adequacy standard for VA opinions)