TIC DOULOUREUX OR TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA

Summary

The Veteran served from February 1987 to February 1990. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for sciatica. The Veteran testified that strenuous activities during service, such as climbing, crawling, falling, and digging foxholes, caused sciatica, and that she received treatment for sciatic pain in the military. Service treatment records were negative for any complaints, treatments, or diagnoses related to sciatica, and an enlistment examination found normal lower extremities. Post-service records from 2011 onwards reflect ongoing sciatica. A March 2016 VA examination opined it was less likely than not that the sciatica was service-related, noting the absence of in-service complaints. An addendum opinion in July 2022 also found it less likely than not that the sciatica was service-related, citing the Veteran's own reports of onset in 2007/2008, nearly two decades after service. A subsequent VA opinion in October 2024 found it less likely than not that the sciatica was incurred in or caused by service, noting the absence of pre-service complaints, lack of chronicity during service, and a more likely etiology from post-service employment and activities. Lay statements from fellow servicemembers corroborated complaints of back pain and strenuous activity but were silent on sciatica or nerve pain. The Board found the VA medical opinions persuasive and the lay evidence insufficient to establish service connection. Service connection for sciatica was denied.

Rationale

Service treatment records negative for sciatica; No in-service complaints of sciatica; First diagnosis decades after service; Multiple VA opinions found less likely than not service-related

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26002316
Decision Date: 02/19/26	Archive Date: 02/19/26

DOCKET NO. 19-29 165A
DATE: February 19, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for sciatica is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's claimed sciatica did not have its onset in service and is not etiologically related to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for sciatica have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1987 to February 1990.

The matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2021. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the Veteran's file.

The instant matter was denied in a June 2023 Board decision. The Veteran subsequently timely appealed the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a January 2024 Joint Motion for Remand, the parties agreed to vacate the June 2023 Board decision and remanded the instant matter to the Board for further adjudication.

A December 2024 Board decision denied the claim for service connection for sciatica and remanded a claim for service connection for a left shoulder disorder to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. The Veteran timely appealed the Board's December 2024 decision to the Court. In an August 2025 Joint Motion for Remand, the parties agreed to vacate the December 2024 Board decision and remanded the instant matter to the Board for further adjudication.

An October 2025 letter to the Veteran informed him that the Court had issued a decision that remanded (sent back) his case to the Board for readjudication and the issuance of a new decision. The October 2025 letter further indicated that the Board would wait to make a decision on his appeal for 90 days from the date of the letter to provide the Veteran with the opportunity to submit additional argument and/or evidence in support of his appeal or to request a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran did not respond to this letter and the Board will therefore proceed with its adjudication.

A February 2025 rating decision granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for right shoulder degenerative arthritis and assigned an initial rating. As this decision represents a full grant of the benefits sought with respect to this claim for service connection, such issue is no longer before the Board for consideration. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1977).

Service Connection

1. Entitlement to service connection for sciatica is denied.

The Veteran asserts that her sciatica warrants service connection. Specifically, during the November 2021 virtual hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, the Veteran testified that extreme activities such as climbing, crawling, falling off of the ladder, landing on the net, and sitting in and digging the fox hole caused the Veteran to experience sciatica as well as marching and running aggravating the symptoms, and explained that the Veteran received treatment for sciatic pain in the military.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R.         § 3.303. "To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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 or aggravated during service"-the so-called "nexus" requirement." Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Additionally, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic disabilities such as arthritis are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 
 requirement." Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Additionally, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic disabilities such as arthritis are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a persuasive weight of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F. 4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatments, or diagnoses related to sciatica and/or a sciatic nerve disorder. During the January 1989 examination, the Veteran's lower extremities were normal. In an accompanying Report of Medical History, the Veteran specifically denied having had neuritis or paralysis. A June 1992 Reserves entrance examination found the Veteran's lower extremities to be abnormal, finding that the Veteran had a mild asymptomatic genu varum.

Post-service treatment records reflect ongoing sciatica/radicular pain beginning in 2011. The Veteran's health reports from the Social Security Administration note ongoing sciatic pain beginning in 2011.

With regards to direct service connection, a March 2016 VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) that the Veteran's present sciatica was incurred in or caused by her service, to include from running and marching during her active service. The examiner reasoned that the record was silent for any in-service or post-service complaints of sciatica until 2010 and found that a nexus to service was unlikely. However, the examiner relied solely on the absence of in-service complaints of a right shoulder disorder when rendering this opinion See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). The Board thus found the opinion to be inadequate in its March 2022 remand. This opinion is therefore afforded little, if any, probative weight.

An addendum etiology opinion was thus obtained in July 2022. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) that the Veteran's present sciatica disorder was incurred in or caused by her service, to include as due to running and/or marching while carrying heavy equipment. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran had reported that her back pain had onset in 2007/2008 along with intermittent radicular pain (sciatica) and that the Veteran's active service had concluded nearly two decades prior. Thus, based on the record and the Veteran's own reports of onset in 2008, a nexus to service was unlikely in the examiner's opinion. The Board found this opinion to be inadequate in its August 2024 remand. This opinion is therefore afforded little, if any, probative weight.

In October 2024, the Veteran was afforded an addendum VA medical opinion based on the remand directives of the August 2024 Board decision. The VA examiner opined that the claimed sciatica was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the service. In support of the VA examiner's opinion, the examiner explained that after the review of the evidence on file, the Veteran's enlistment examination was negative for pre-existing condition regarding the claim. The veteran also reported to experiencing sciatica during active service, but the service treatment records do not support this assertion. The examiner also noted that the first notice of a sciatica diagnosis was in conjunction with the Veteran's back condition in 2011, which is 21 years after the separation. The examiner explained that despite the Veteran's claims, there is no objective evidence of sciatica during active service, but there is significant lack of chronicity of care. Therefore, the examiner explained that it is less likely than not that the claimed condition is due to service as there is a lack of substantiating evidence supporting a nexus between current diagnosis of sciatica and military service. The examiner explained that, without chronicity during service or after service, post-service event, illness, or injury is considered to be a more likely etiology. The examiner opined that the Veteran's sciatica is more likely due to her post-se
atica diagnosis was in conjunction with the Veteran's back condition in 2011, which is 21 years after the separation. The examiner explained that despite the Veteran's claims, there is no objective evidence of sciatica during active service, but there is significant lack of chronicity of care. Therefore, the examiner explained that it is less likely than not that the claimed condition is due to service as there is a lack of substantiating evidence supporting a nexus between current diagnosis of sciatica and military service. The examiner explained that, without chronicity during service or after service, post-service event, illness, or injury is considered to be a more likely etiology. The examiner opined that the Veteran's sciatica is more likely due to her post-separation job as a housekeeper and corrections officer in addition to hobbies and leisure activities. The Board finds the October 2024 VA medical opinion has clear conclusion and supporting data, as well as reasoned medical explanation finding that the Veteran's claimed sciatica was less likely than not as a result of her active service. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008).  The VA examiner considered all evidence of record after thorough review of the claims file and provided an opinion supported by a clear rationale. There is no contrary opinion of record.

The Board notes that the Veteran submitted two lay statements in support of her appeals. A September 2019 statement from S.H.S. indicates that she was stationed with the Veteran while Germany, that the Veteran had complained of back pain while marching with heavy boots, while carrying heavy backpacks and heavy equipment and while conducting strenuous physical activities. S.H.S. further indicated that the Veteran would complain about her pain and that she witnessed the Veteran taking her pain medication. While this September 2019 statement indicates that the Veteran complained of back pain during service and that the Veteran engaged in strenuous activity during service, it is silent regarding the Veteran experiencing sciatica or nerve pain. The Board therefore  statement is therefore insufficient to establish service connection.

The second statement submitted by the Veteran is a September 2019 statement from Q.P. which indicates that they were friends with the Veteran and that there was a time that she would complain about her back and air assault school. No further details were provided. While this September 2019 confirms that the Veteran complain about her back, it does not indicate when she complained about her back or whether she reported the mechanism of injury or other cause. The statement is also silent as to whether the Veteran reported experiencing sciatica or nerve pain or whether she reported a mechanism of injury that resulted in her sciatica. The Board therefore finds that this statement is insufficient to establish service connection.

In reaching this determination, the Board has also considered the lay evidence of record. The Board is sympathetic to the Veteran's contentions that her sciatica is related to her service. The Board further notes that laypersons are competent to describe observable symptoms, such as nerve pain. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Lay evidence may be competent on a variety of matters concerning the nature and cause of disability. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, laypersons are not competent to relate a neurological condition to military service or service connected disability through a medical nexus as that issue is medically complex and requires specialized medical knowledge. Id. Thus, while the Board has duly considered the lay evidence in support of this claim, it lends more probative weight to the highly probative VA medical opinion evidence in this case, which indicates against nexus to service.

In summary, while the Veteran had a sciatica diagnosis, the Board finds the evidence of record does not support a finding that the condition is due to service. The Veteran was first diagnosed with sciatica in 2011 in connection with the Veteran's back condition, decades after service, and the medical treatment records do not support a nexus between the condition and service. 

Furthermore, the Board finds that the October 2024 VA examiner provided sound rationale to support her opinion that that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's sciatica was caused by service, and the examiner's rationale has not been contradicted by another opinion or medical evidence. The examiner's opinion is grounded in the record and supported by a well-reasoned and adequate rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, supra; Stefl v. Nicholson, supra. This opinion is therefore being afforded great probative weight. There is no contrary opinion of record.

Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for sciatica is not warranted. The appeal is denied.
 do not support a nexus between the condition and service. 

Furthermore, the Board finds that the October 2024 VA examiner provided sound rationale to support her opinion that that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's sciatica was caused by service, and the examiner's rationale has not been contradicted by another opinion or medical evidence. The examiner's opinion is grounded in the record and supported by a well-reasoned and adequate rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, supra; Stefl v. Nicholson, supra. This opinion is therefore being afforded great probative weight. There is no contrary opinion of record.

Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for sciatica is not warranted. The appeal is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, supra.

 

 

KRISTY L. ZADORA

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Audrey Kim, Counsel

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.