12-35 170
12-35 170
| Board of Vet. App. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Veteran served on active duty March 1982–July 2007 and appealed a January 2010 RO denial of service connection for a cervical spine disability. Appeal perfected to the Board in December 2012; remanded in March 2017 for additional development and then returned to the Board.
- Veteran alleges neck spasms beginning in service (first reported March 2002 during deployment) and ongoing painful limited motion and monthly flare-ups; wife corroborates activity limitations.
- Service treatment records document shoulder complaints and an upper back sports injury in 2002 but no diagnosed cervical spine/neck condition or attribution to the cervical spine during service.
- Post-service records: intermittent private complaints and a 2008 note of cervical spasm; multiple VA examinations (2012, 2016, 2017) found either normal imaging or no chronic neck diagnosis; one examiner noted limited ROM and pain but diagnosed acute neck strain and concluded no nexus to service.
- Imaging (2016 X‑rays; 2016 MRI) showed no degenerative changes or significant abnormalities; Board found the March 2017 VA examination the most probative and concluded no service connection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine disability | Veteran: neck spasms/limited ROM began in service (2002) from delivering munitions trailers and continue; seeks service connection | VA/Board: records lack contemporaneous cervical diagnosis or nexus; imaging and exams do not support chronic service-related cervical disability | Denied — preponderance of evidence against service connection |
| Presumptive service connection for chronic disease (arthritis) | Veteran: argues condition is chronic and related to service | VA/Board: no diagnosis of arthritis in service or within one year post-discharge; imaging negative for arthritis | Denied — presumptive criteria not met |
Key Cases Cited
- D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (Board remand substantial compliance standard)
- Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (no Stegall violation where examiner addressed remand’s ultimate question)
- Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (remand compliance principle)
- Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362 (nexus and elements for service connection)
- Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (elements for establishing service connection)
- Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (limits of layperson competence for medical matters)
- Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (when lay opinion may be competent on medical issues)
- Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (scope of lay evidence and medical complexity)