DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

B. MULLINS · 2026 · Case ID: 26004089

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from May 2004 to May 2005 with additional periods in the Army National Guard, appeals the denial of service connection for a low back condition, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, and a right leg cyst. The Board granted service connection for a low back condition, finding it related to service based on lay testimony and a private medical opinion from Dr. V.F. The Board found the VA nexus opinions inadequate. The Veteran's claims of bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy being secondary to his low back condition were also granted, supported by the private opinion. Service connection for a left groin cyst was granted, as the evidence showed its onset in service and recurrence. The claim for a right leg cyst was denied, as the Board found no evidence of its existence or in-service onset, attributing the claim to a possible misidentification of the affected leg. The Board resolved all doubt in the veteran's favor for the granted conditions.

Rationale

Evidence of current disability (degenerative disc disease, arthritis); Lay testimony regarding in-service symptoms and duties; Probative private medical opinion linking condition to in-service activities

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

18-42 989A

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26004089
Decision Date: 04/02/26 Archive Date: 04/02/26

DOCKET NO. 18-42 989A
DATE: April 2, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a low back condition is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for recurrent cyst on left groin, to include residuals, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a right leg cyst is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's low back condition is related to service.

2. The Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is related to his low back condition.

3. The Veteran's recurrent left groin cyst had its onset in service.

4. The Veteran does not have a right leg cyst; nor was he treated for a right leg cyst during service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for a low back condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303.

2. The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.310.

3. The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.310.

4. The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for recurrent left groin cyst have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303.

5. The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for a right leg cyst have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 2004 to May 2005, with numerous additional periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) in the Army National Guard.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), which denied entitlement to service connection for a low back condition, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, and a right leg cyst. The Veteran timely perfected an appeal. See September 2015 Notice of Disagreement; July 2018 Statement of the Case; September 2018 VA Form 9.

In February 2023 and January 2024, the Board remanded these matters for additional development.

1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back condition.

See discussion at section 3 below.

2. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy.

See discussion at section 3 below.

3. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy.

The Veteran seeks service connection for a low back condition. He asserts that he experienced back symptoms during his deployment to Guantánamo Bay and that his symptoms continued post-service. He also asserts that his bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is secondary to his low back condition.

Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a).

Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F. 3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown,
in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a).

Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F. 3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310. In order to prevail on the theory of secondary service connection, there must be evidence of a current disability; evidence of a service-connected disability; and evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998).

A lay witness is competent to testify as to the occurrence of an in-service injury or incident where such issue is factual in nature. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993). Additionally, where symptoms are capable of lay observation, a lay witness is competent to testify to a lack of symptoms prior to service, continuity of symptoms after in-service injury or disease, and receipt of medical treatment for such symptoms. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). This benefit-of-the-doubt rule applies if the competing evidence is nearly equal but does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The Veteran has been diagnosed with degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine. See April 2022 VA Examination Report; November 2023 VA Examination Report. Thus, there is evidence of a current disability.

Service treatment records are negative for any treatment or diagnoses of a low back condition. However, the Veteran does not assert that he was treated for a low back condition in service or that he clinically complained of low back symptoms in service, but rather that it first manifested in service. See September 2018 VA Form 9; January 2020 Statement in Support of Claim.

Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran was treated for low back pain in 2008, which was within three years of his service separation. See May 2008 Private Treatment Record (diagnosing arthritis).

The Veteran submitted a statement from his First Sergeant indicating that the Veteran was responsible for all of the weapons and equipment in the unit and that he often moved heavy equipment. See February 2019 Statement in Support of Claim.

The Veteran submitted a statement from a Soldier who served with him in Guantánamo Bay indicating that the Veteran often went on foot patrols carrying heavy rucksacks and assault weapons and that he often complained about back pain. See November 2019 Statement in Support of Claim; see also December 2019 Buddy Statement (indicating that the Veteran often complained of back pain due to military duties).

The Veteran submitted a statement from his wife indicating that the Veteran had back pain when he came back from his deployment. See January 2020 Statement in Support of Claim.

In a January 2020 statement, the Veteran reported that he was "constantly loading and unloading trucks, carrying heavy equipment, setting things up" during his Guantánamo Bay deployment and that he started to experience back pain, which continued after his deployment.

The Veteran submitted a statement from his wife indicating that the Veteran had back pain when he came back from his deployment. See January 2020 Statement in Support of Claim.

The Veteran is competent to describe symptoms that he experienced in service or at any time after service when the symptoms he perceived, that is, experienced, were directly through the senses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience; lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-71 (1994) (lay testimony is competent as to symptoms of an injury or illness, which are within the realm of one's personal knowledge; personal knowledge is that which comes to the witness through the use of the senses; lay testimony is competent only so long as it is within the knowledge and personal observations of the witness, but lay testimony is not competent to prove a particular injury or illness); see also Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308 (2007) (lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology, where the determination is not medical in nature and is capable of lay observation). Similarly, the Veteran's friends and wife are competent to report that they witnessed the Veteran's in-service duties and in-service and post-service back pain complaints as they are within the realm of their personal experience and are capable of lay observation. Moreover, the Board finds these statements to be credible as there is nothing in the record that expressly contradicts them.

Accordingly, the second Shedden element has also been satisfied. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167.

The question then becomes whether a nexus, or relationship, between the Veteran's current disability and the in-service symptoms has been shown.

As discussed in previous Board remands, the April 2022 and November 2023 negative VA nexus opinions are inadequate and entitled to no probative weight.

The Veteran submitted a February 2020 private examination report authored by Dr. V.F., who indicated that he reviewed the claims file and interviewed the Veteran. Dr. V.F. opined that the Veteran's lumbar degenerative joint disease was related to his in-service activities, such as heavy lifting and manual labor, and explained how imaging of the Veteran's lumbar spine over time supported that conclusion. The Board finds that this opinion is probative because it is supported by adequate rationale.

In a November 2024 opinion, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran's low back condition was less likely as not related to service because there was no evidence of in-service treatment or post-service treatment. The Board assigns this opinion minimal probative weight. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331, 1336-37 (2006) (holding that the lack of contemporaneous medical records does not, in and of itself, render lay evidence not credible).

Thus, the only probative opinion in this case is supportive of the Veteran's claim. There are no contrary (and probative) opinions of record, nor is there sufficient basis for the Board to reject this supportive opinion and to further develop the claim. Cf. Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305, 312 (2003) (holding that, because it is not permissible for VA to undertake additional development to obtain evidence against an appellant's case, VA must provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision to pursue such development where such development could be reasonably construed as obtaining additional evidence for that purpose).

Based on the foregoing and resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for a low back condition is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).

The Board also finds that the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is secondary to his low back condition. See February 2020 Private Opinion. Accordingly, service connection on a secondary basis for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is warranted.

4. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg cyst.

See discussion at section 5 below
).

4. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg cyst.

See discussion at section 5 below.

5. Entitlement to service connection for a right leg cyst.

In his April 2015 claim, the Veteran identified a right leg cyst.

A November 2004 service treatment record shows that the Veteran had a cyst removed from his left thigh and groin area.

In his September 2015 notice of disagreement, the Veteran indicated that "despite surgical intervention on my leg due to a cyst during my tour in Guantanamo, I have noted the cyst is growing again in the same location."

A May 2018 VA treatment record shows that the Veteran reported a "fluctuating mass on the left groin" that was first noticed and removed during his deployment. On examination, the Veteran had skin tag of the upper left thigh.

Regarding a left leg cyst, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. The record shows that the Veteran currently has a left leg cyst, that he first had a left leg cyst during service, and that his left leg cyst reoccurs. However, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for a right leg cyst. There is no evidence that the Veteran developed a right leg cyst during service or that he currently has a right leg cyst. It appears to the Board that the Veteran identified the wrong leg on his initial claim form.

Based on the foregoing and resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for a left leg cyst, including residuals, is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).

B. MULLINS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board R. Kipper, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer