INTERVERTEBRAL DISC SYNDROME

SHEREEN M. MARCUS · 2026 · Case ID: A26015134

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the Marine Corps Reserves and Air Force Reserves with multiple periods of active duty between 1996 and 2011, appeals the denial of service connection for a low back disability. The Veteran claims an in-service injury occurred around March 10, 2010, during active duty, when he experienced a sudden onset of low back pain and muscle spasm after picking up his daughter. While this injury was documented with an unofficial line-of-duty determination and subsequent physical therapy, the Veteran continued active duty for over a year without reported issues. However, records from December 2011 onwards show continued low back pain complaints, with a December 2011 radiology report indicating a disc bulge at L5-S1. Subsequent treatment records in 2013 and 2014 documented a herniated disc at L5-S1 and severe arthritis. A January 2019 VA examination opined that the current disability was unlikely related to the March 2010 injury due to a lack of continuity of care. The Board found this opinion unpersuasive, noting the extensive records showing continued complaints and physical therapy post-injury. The Board concluded the evidence was in approximate balance regarding the nexus between the in-service injury and the current disability, applying the benefit of the doubt in the Veteran's favor. Service connection for lumbar disc herniation, degenerative arthritis, IVDS, and spinal fusion is granted.

Rationale

In-service injury in March 2010 documented with unofficial LOD; Continued complaints and physical therapy post-injury; Subsequent MRI and treatment records show disc bulge and herniation

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS RESERVES AND AIR FORCE RESERVES

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

201001-115282

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26015134
Decision Date: 02/19/26 Archive Date: 02/19/26

DOCKET NO. 201001-115282
DATE: February 19, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for lumbar disc herniation, degenerative arthritis, intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS), and spinal fusion (low back disability) is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The persuasive evidence of record is in at least approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's low back disability had its onset in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for low back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served in the Marine Corps Reserves and Air Force Reserves, with various periods of active duty, active duty for training (ADT), and inactive duty for training (IDT), to include the following periods of active duty: February 14, 1996 to August 22, 1996, September 9, 2009 to March 8, 2010, July 31, 2010 to August 8, 2010; August 27, 2010 to September 9, 2010; November 12, 2010 to December 31, 2010; January 1, 2011 to January 12, 2011; February 17, 2011 to April 22, 2011; and July 2, 2011 to July 10, 2011.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2020 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the October 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on June 5, 2024 and a copy of the transcript is of record. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 3, 2020 notification of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

SERVICE CONNECTION

Generally, service connection may be granted for 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).

Certain chronic diseases, such as arthritis, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (
Certain chronic diseases, such as arthritis, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

At the outset, the Board also emphasizes that only "veterans" can obtain VA benefits. See generally Holmes v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 38, 40 (1997). The term "veteran" means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable. 38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d).

"Active military, naval, and air service" includes (i) active duty, (ii) any period of active duty for training (ADT) during which the Veteran was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, and (iii) any period of inactive duty training (IDT) during which the Veteran was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a) (emphasis added).

The Board acknowledges the Veteran served in the Marine Corps and Air Force Reserves with various periods of active duty, ADT, and IDT. As such, his lumbar spine disability may be service connected if attributed to (i) a period of active duty, or (ii) related to an injury or disease occurred during a period of ADT, or, alternatively, (iii) related to an injury during IDT. Id.

In rendering this decision, the Board has reviewed all evidence of record whether discussed in detail. See Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding the Board must only discuss the evidence which is relevant to the issues on appeal). To the extent the evidence is found in "approximate balance," the Board will afford the benefit of the doubt in favor of the Veteran. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F. 4th 776 (Fed, Cir. 2021) (holding that exact equipoise is not required for the benefit of the doubt to be applied, but rather the Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance or "nearly equal").

Service connection for lumbar disc herniation is granted.

The Veteran contends that his low back disability is due to service. As discussed below, the Board finds that based on the evidence of record, the evidence is at least in approximate balance that his current disability is attributable to an injury occurred during a period of active duty. As such, service connection for his lumbar spine disability is appropriate.

In particular, the Veteran contends that he initially injured his back on or around March 10, 2010, during a period of active duty, where at such time he was picking up his daughter and felt a "pop" in his back. See October 2019 statement. This injury is well-documented and, indeed, there is an unofficial line-of-duty determination in the claims file. Nonetheless, thereafter, he continued serving on active duty for over a year without any continued issues.

Indeed, the Veteran concedes he was not treated for his spine or provided an MRI until 2013 which determined that the L5-S1 disc was ruptured. He stated that he underwent surgery when he was a drilling reservist and indicates that the condition still causes severe pain.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in January 2019, which considered the Veteran's contention and timeline, but found, in light of the lack of continuity of care for three years following this initial injury, it was unlikely that any current lumbar spine disability would be related to an acute injury in March 2010.

Thus, the pertinent inquiry for the Board, here, is one of nexus in light of the entire evidentiary record.

Turning to the relevant evidence of record, the Veteran's service treatment records indicate he was in the reserves from 1996 to 2011 with on-again, off-again, active-duty orders as noted in the introduction. His January 199
that the condition still causes severe pain.

Thus, the pertinent inquiry for the Board, here, is one of nexus in light of the entire evidentiary record.

From 2009 to 2011, he served as a flight nurse at a reserve unit for the Air Force.

During that time, again, March 2010 treatment records indicate that the Veteran reported sudden onset of low back pain and muscle spasm when he picked up his daughter. During his Board hearing, he testified that when he injured his back in March 2010, he was thereafter sent to physical therapy for five weeks and then continued his duties. Progress notes from May 2010 to June 2010 seem to confirm said physical therapy for continued back pain.

In fact, such low back pain complaints continued into 2011 and into 2012. A December 2011 record indicates the Veteran's low back pain complaints with a history of an injury involving picking up his daughter in March 2010 with continued complaints thereafter. A December 2011 Radiology Report reflects that there is a circumferential disc bulge at the L5-S1 level and mild loss of disc height with "vacuum phenomenon" observed at L5-S1.

The Veteran reported during a July 2012 Operative Report that he has had chronic lower back pain for about "two years and a half", and he underwent treatment for low back disability including lumbar epidural steroid injection in August 2012.

A January 2013 Informal Line of Duty Determination form indicates that the Veteran was diagnosed and treated for IVDS March 11, 2010, when the Veteran developed sudden onset acute low back pain and spasm after lifting his child while on orders. The form reflects that the pain did not resolve for months leading to physical therapy and an MRI and indicates that the Veteran had active-duty status from March 9, 2010, to April 14, 2010.

August 2013 treatment records reflect MRI findings of L5-S1 disc protrusion and annular tear, and October 2013 service treatment records include a surgical update where the Veteran provided an update regarding his physician's findings of disc space loss in the L5-S1 with severe arthritis. November 2013 service treatment records reflect a diagnosis of herniated disc at L5-S1.

Again, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in January 2019 where the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with degenerative arthritis of the spine, IVDS, and spinal fusion, finding the diagnoses were unlikely attributable to service given the lack of continuity of care between the March 2010 injury and the 2013 MRI indicative of said diagnoses.

Analysis

In short, the Veteran's in-service March 2010 back-related injury is well-documented, and it is well-documented he was on active-duty status at the time of said injury.

The Veteran's current diagnoses, to include degenerative arthritis of the spine and spinal fusion (with a history of disc herniation) are also well documented.

With regard to etiology, there is competing evidence. On the one hand, there is an unofficial line of duty determination indicating the Veteran's back-related injury and residuals thereafter were incurred during a period of active duty. On the other hand, there is a January 2019 VA examiner's opinion finding a nexus between the March 2010 injury and current diagnoses unlikely due to a lack of chronicity in care.

The Board finds the January 2019 VA examiner's opinion unpersuasive. Despite the examiner's opinion finding a lack of chronicity of care, as outlined above, there clearly were voluminous pages of records indicating otherwise. After the Veteran's March 2010 injury, the Veteran was ordered to several months of physical therapy. After completion of physical therapy, he continued to complain of low back pain, and as early as December 2011, a radiology report revealed a disc bulge at L5-S1. While it is certainly possible the Veteran had another intervening injury prior to the 2013 MRI, the evidence is, at a minimum, in approximate balance whether he incurred a chronic disability at
lack of chronicity in care.

When, as here, the evidence is at least in approximate balance, resolution of reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor is appropriate. Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for the lumbar spine disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The appeal is granted.

SHEREEN M. MARCUS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Maddox, Rolen

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