INTERVERTEBRAL DISC SYNDROME

ERIC S. LEBOFF · 2026 · Case ID: 26002513

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the U.S. Army from November 1976 to April 1977, passed away in December 2021, and his surviving spouse was substituted as Appellant for accrued benefits. The Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for a lumbar spine disability, a left ankle disability, and a cervical spine disability claimed as secondary to another service-connected disability. The Board previously remanded these issues in April 2024 for additional development, specifically requesting adequate medical opinions on the etiology of the claimed disabilities. The January 2025 VA examination provided opinions that were deemed adequate for adjudication. Regarding the lumbar spine and left ankle claims, the Board found the weight of the evidence against service connection. While the Veteran reported continuous pain since service, his statements varied and were often made in the context of pending VA claims. Treating providers did not receive reports of in-service injury or pain prior to 1989. The January 2025 VA examiner opined it was less likely than not that the current disabilities were related to the in-service complaints or fall. For the cervical spine claim, service connection was denied because service connection for the lumbar spine disability was not established, and there was no evidence or contention that the cervical spine condition was proximately due to or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected acquired psychiatric disability or appendectomy scar. The Board denied all three claims.

Rationale

Weight of evidence against service connection; Inconsistent and self-serving statements regarding onset of pain; Negative VA medical opinion

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

16-12 575A

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26002513
Decision Date: 02/24/26 Archive Date: 02/24/26

DOCKET NO. 16-12 575A
DATE: February 24, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability, to include as proximately due to or aggravated by another service connected disability is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The weight of the evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's claimed lumbar spine disability is the result of an in-service event, injury, or occurrence, to include in service onset.

2. The weight of the evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's claimed left ankle disability is the result of an in-service event, injury, or occurrence, to include in service onset.

3. Service connection is not in effect for lumbar spine disability at any point during the period on appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability as proximately due to another service connected disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1976 to April 1977. He passed away in December of 2021, and the Veteran's surviving spouse was substituted as the Appellant in order to complete the appeal for accrued benefits purposes.

These issues were previously before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in April 2024, at which time they were remanded for additional development. A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to substantial compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In April 2024 the Board directed that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) obtain VA medical opinions as to the etiology of the Veteran's claimed cervical spine, lumbar spine, and left ankle disabilities, that were supported by an adequate medical rationale. Specifically, the Board determined that an October 2023 VA examiner had impermissibly relied on an absence of evidence to support their conclusion that the Veteran's claimed lumbar spine and left ankle disabilities were the result of an in-service fall. Additional medical opinions were obtained in January 2025, pursuant to the April 2024 Board remand. As discussed further below, the Board finds these opinions adequate for adjudication purposes and adjudication on the merits is appropriate.

Service Connection

1. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is denied.

The appellant advances the Veteran's contentions that his claimed lumbar spine and left ankle disabilities were the result of in-service injuries.

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

A March 2015 VA examination reflects diagnoses of lumbar strain and a healed fracture of the left distal fibula. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) reflect in-service complaints of low back pain and left ankle pain after a fall. The Veteran's STRs reflect that he declined a separation examination at the time of his discharge from active service.

The Veteran has reported experiencing continuous
of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

The Veteran has reported experiencing continuous pain from his in-service injuries from the time of his separation onward. See e.g., 03/15/2016, Form 9.

In May 2008 the Veteran reported to the Social Security Administration medical examiner that he developed pain in his back in 1998 and sustained an ankle injury in 2000. 11/02/2017, Medical Treatment Records - Furnished by SSA at 154.

In July 2009 the Veteran reported to VA mental health providers that he had injured his neck and back in 2006 (approximately 29 years after the end of his period of active service); several days later the Veteran reported that he began having problems with his back after the end of his period of active service and that these problems were exacerbated by an accident in 1989. 02/12/2015, CAPRI at 4; 11/03/2017, CAPRI at 185.

In March 2010 the Veteran reported experiencing chronic low back pain for approximately 12 years (i.e., since 1998, approximately 21 years after the end of his period of active service). 02/12/2015, CAPRI at 6.

VA must consider all medical and lay evidence of record and make appropriate determinations of competence, credibility, and weight. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). The credibility of a witness can be impeached by a showing of interest, bias, inconsistent statements, the demeanor of the witness, the facial plausibility of the testimony, the internal consistency of the testimony, impairment in memory, or, to a certain extent, bad character, among other factors. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 510-511 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In particular, personal interest may affect the credibility of the evidence. Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991).

The Board finds the Veteran's reports of continuous low back and left ankle pain since service to be of limited probative value. While the Veteran's reports of the onset of his low back and ankle pain have varied, he has only discussed his in-service injury and reported continuous pain since that time in the context of pending VA disability claims (i.e., in statements to VA or to VA examiners).

When speaking to treating providers, the Veteran had not reported any history of in-service injury or low back or left ankle pain prior to 1989 at the earliest. Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment are exceptionally credible because the declarant has a strong motive to tell the truth in order to receive proper medical care. See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356 (1992).

In January 2025 a VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that any of the low back and/or left ankle disabilities diagnosed after the end of his period of service were related to his in-service complaints of low back and left ankle pain, or that they were the result of his in-service fall. The opinion was offered following a review of the record and was accompanied by a rationale in support of its conclusion. Accordingly, it is deemed probative. No refuting opinions are of record.

The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's claimed lumbar spine disability is the result of an in-service event, injury, or occurrence, to include in service onset. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

Additionally, the weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's claimed left ankle disability is the result of an in-service event, injury, or occurrence, to include in service onset. The criteria for entitlement
Accordingly, it is deemed probative. No refuting opinions are of record.

Additionally, the weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's claimed left ankle disability is the result of an in-service event, injury, or occurrence, to include in service onset. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability as proximately due to or aggravated by another service connected disability is denied.

In his December 2014 claim the Veteran characterized his claimed cervical spine disability as having "transpired" during his period of active service. However, in his March 2016 Form 9 the Veteran clarified the nature of his cervical spine claim, contending that his claimed cervical spine disability was proximately due to his claimed lumbar spine disability.

Entitlement to service connection may be established on a secondary basis where there is evidence of (1) a current, non-service-connected disability, (2) a current service-connected disability, and (3) evidence that the non-service-connected disability is either (i) proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability or (ii) aggravated (increased in severity) beyond its natural progression by a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 446 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

As discussed above, service connection is not in effect for any lumbar spine disability. At the time of the Veteran's death, service connection was in effect for an acquired psychiatric disability and an appendectomy scar; the Veteran has not contended, nor is there any evidence to show, that the Veteran's claimed cervical spine disability is proximately due to or aggravated by his service connected acquired psychiatric disability and/or appendectomy scar.

The evidence does not show, nor has the Veteran contended, that his claimed cervical spine disability had its onset in service or is the result of an in-service event, injury, or occurrence.

In light of the above, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability as proximately due to another service connected disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

Eric S. Leboff

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Sametshaw, Eric C.

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer