SHOULDER IMPAIRMENT OF

ERIC S. LEBOFF · 2026 · Case ID: 26004509

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from May 2000 to February 2003, appeals the denial of service connection for left and right shoulder disabilities. The Board previously remanded these issues for further development, including a VA examination and medical opinions on the relationship to service and service-connected lumbosacral and cervical spine strains. However, the veteran failed to attend the scheduled VA examination, and subsequent communications from the VA were returned as undeliverable. The Board found that the presumption of regularity in mailing applied, as the veteran had not provided clear evidence of VA using an incorrect address or other plausible addresses being available. The Board noted the veteran's lay statement attributing the shoulder conditions to ruck marches but found it outweighed by the lack of medical evidence. Service treatment records did not mention any shoulder complaints during service. Post-service records showed complaints in November 2012 and a diagnosis of shoulder impingement syndrome in May 2015. No medical opinions were of record linking the conditions to service or to the veteran's service-connected back and neck strains. The Board concluded that the criteria for service connection were not met, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine was not applicable due to the lack of evidence supporting the claim. Service connection for both the left and right shoulder disabilities was denied.

Rationale

No in-service complaints or diagnoses for left shoulder disability.; No medical opinion linking current disability to service or service-connected lumbosacral strain.; Veteran's lay statement regarding onset outweighed by lack of medical evidence.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

17-04 923

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26004509
Decision Date: 04/14/26 Archive Date: 04/14/26

DOCKET NO. 17-04 923
DATE: April 14, 2026

ORDER

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

Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's left shoulder disability is shown as chronic in service and manifested to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is established; or the disability is otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's right shoulder disability is shown as chronic in service and manifested to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is established; or the disability is otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for a left shoulder disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for a right shoulder disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from May 2000 to February 2003.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) on appeal of a July 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Board remanded this matter in June 2024 for the RO to develop the issues of service connection for a left and right shoulder disability. Specifically, the Board instructed that a VA examination of the Veteran's left and right shoulder be obtained, along with medical opinions addressing diagnoses, if any, and whether the Veteran's left and right shoulder disability are related to service and/or his service-connected lumbosacral strain and cervical spine strain.

In June 2024, VA requested an examination for the Veteran's shoulders and for medical opinions regarding such to be obtained. See 6/14/24 Exam Request. The exam request also indicated that the Veteran was homeless. The examination was scheduled for July 18, 2024, but the Veteran did not attend. See 7/18/24 Exam Request. From August 2024 to November 2024, several documents related to the Veteran's left and right shoulder claims were sent to the Veteran but were returned to VA as the mail was not deliverable as addressed; the mail could not be forwarded. See 8/20/24, 8/21/24, 9/20/24, 10/29/24, 11/19/24 Returned Mail. The June 2024 exam request and the returned mail were all mailed to the same address, the last known address of record.

In the July 2024 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), the claims of service connection for a left and right shoulder disability were denied because the Veteran was a "no show" for his examination and did not provide good cause for his absence.

The Board notes that there is a presumption that "the Secretary properly discharged his official duties by mailing a copy of a decision to the last known address of the appellant... on the date that the decision was issued." Clarke v. Nicholson,?21?Vet. App.?130, 133 (2007) (quoting Woods v. Gober,?14?Vet. App.?214, 220?(2000)). In order for this presumption to attach, VA must provide notice to the latest address of record for the claimant. Crain v. Principi,?17?Vet. App.?182, 186?(2003). This presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted with "clear evidence that VA did not follow its regular mailing practices or that its practices were not regular." Id. For the purposes of this appeal, the?presumption of regularity?extends to the officials at the AOJ who were responsible for notifying the Appellant that she must elect a beginning eligibility date for DEA benefits within 60 days, or that an eligibility date of September 28, 2022 would be assigned. See Woods,?14?Vet. App. 214 at 220-21; see also Mindenhall v. Brown,?7?Vet. App.?271?(1994) (applying the presumption of regularity?to official duties of the AOJ).

and may be rebutted with "clear evidence that VA did not follow its regular mailing practices or that its practices were not regular." Id. For the purposes of this appeal, the?presumption of regularity?extends to the officials at the AOJ who were responsible for notifying the Appellant that she must elect a beginning eligibility date for DEA benefits within 60 days, or that an eligibility date of September 28, 2022 would be assigned. See Woods,?14?Vet. App. 214 at 220-21; see also Mindenhall v. Brown,?7?Vet. App.?271?(1994) (applying the presumption of regularity?to official duties of the AOJ).

The mere assertion of nonreceipt by an appellant is not enough to establish the clear evidence needed to overcome the?presumption of regularity?in the mailing of the decision.?Id., Davis v. Principi,?17?Vet. App.?29, 37?(2003). However, the presumption of regularity?may be rebutted where there is (1) evidence that VA used an?incorrect address?on the mailing, or (2) evidence that the mailing was returned as undeliverable and there were other possible and plausible addresses available to VA at the time of the decision. See Clarke,?21 Vet. App. at 134?(noting that "VA's use of an?incorrect address?is often consequential to delivery. Thus, we have found the existence of clear evidence to rebut the?presumption of regularity when VA addressed communications to a wrong street name, wrong street number, or wrong ZIP code in circumstances indicating that such errors were consequential to delivery."); Crain,?17 Vet. App. at 187?("VA's use of an?incorrect address?for a claimant constitutes the 'clear evidence' needed to rebut the?presumption of regularity?of mailing."); Davis,?17 Vet. App. at 37?(holding that to rebut the presumption of regularity?in mailing, the appellant must establish both that mailing was returned as undeliverable and that there were other possible and plausible addresses available to VA).

Once the presumption is rebutted, the Secretary has the burden to show that the decision was mailed in the appropriate manner "or that the appellant actually received a copy of the decision." Sthele v. Principi,?19?Vet. App.?11, 19 (2004); see Fluker v. Brown,?5?Vet. App.?296, 298?(1993).

In the present case, an April 2022 Report of General Information indicated that the Veteran was homeless. At that time, an address in Burlington, Washington was noted. However, later that month a communication from VA was addressed to the Veteran in Maple Falls, Washington. This is his official last known address of record. While communications to both addresses noted above were undeliverable the file contains no other information from which to conclude that other possible and plausible addresses exist. The Board notes that in the normal course of events, it is generally a claimant's burden to keep VA apprised of his or her whereabouts. If he or she does not do so, VA is not obligated to "turn up heaven and earth to find him." Hyson v. Brown,?5?Vet. App.?262, 265?(1993).

In light of the above, the presumption of regularity has not been rebutted. Accordingly, the Board will adjudicate the claims based on the available evidence.

1. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for a left and right shoulder disability. See 12/15/14 VA Form 21-526b.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §?3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of:?(1)?a current disability; (2)?in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.?Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an "approximate" (meaning?nearly equal) balance of positive and negative evidence?regarding?any material determination.?See?Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391 (2021
3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of:?(1)?a current disability; (2)?in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.?Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Here, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of shoulder impingement syndrome in his left and right shoulder. See 5/22/15 VA Examination 2. He contends that his left and right shoulder disability onset in 2000 due to gradual wear and tear from carrying heavy sack on ruck marches. Id. at 3. He is currently service connected for lumbosacral strain and cervical spine strain.

Service treatment records do not reflect any complaints, findings, or diagnoses with respect to a left or right shoulder disability.

Post-service treatment records show complaints of shoulder pain in November 2012. See 11/2/12 CAPRI at 121. As previously mentioned, he was diagnosed with shoulder impingement syndrome in both shoulders in May 2015. See 5/22/15 VA Examination 2.

There are no other medical records regarding the Veteran's left and right shoulder disability, including medical opinions as to whether the Veteran's left and right shoulder disability is related to service or his service-connected lumbosacral strain and cervical spine strain. As previously explained, the Veteran did not appear for his VA examination on this issue.

There are also no lay statements from the Veteran or another individual regarding his left and right shoulder disability.

With respect to direct service connection, there is no medical opinion of record finding that the Veteran's left and right shoulder disability is related to service. Accordingly, without a nexus, service connection cannot be established.

With respect to secondary service connection, there is no medical opinion of record finding that the Veteran's left and right shoulder disability is related to his service-connected lumbosacral strain and cervical spine strain. Accordingly, without a nexus, secondary service connection cannot be established.

Furthermore, the evidence of record does not support a finding that the Veteran's left and right shoulder disability was shown as chronic in service or that there was continuity of symptomatology since service. He initially filed his claims of service connection for a left and right shoulder disability in September 2010, which was the first indication of a potential left and right shoulder disability. See 9/2/10 VA Form 21-526b. However, this filing was seven years post-service. The Veteran also never reported that he had left and right shoulder issues between service and when he first filed his claims. In sum, the evidence of record does not reflect a chronic disability resulting in impairment of earning capacity.

In reaching its conclusions, the Board considered the Veteran's lay statement that his left and right shoulder disability is related to service. Although the Veteran believes his left and right shoulder disability is related to service, and he is competent to report his symptoms and their onset, he is not competent to provide an opinion as to the etiology of his left and right shoulder disability. See Layno v. Brown, 6?Vet. App.?465, 471 (1994); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24?Vet. App.?428, 438 (2011). Thus, the Veteran's statements are outweighed by the other evidence of record.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for a left and right shoulder disability have not been met. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable.?38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102;?Lynch,?21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Eric S. Leboff

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Sproviero

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