PERIPHERAL NERVE DISORDERS

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from June 2017 to June 2021, appeals the denial of service connection for right lower extremity (RLE) and left lower extremity (LLE) radiculopathy. The veteran contends these conditions are secondary to a service-connected lumbar spine disability. The Board reviewed the evidence, including VA examinations from July 2022, April 2024, and September 2024, along with VA treatment records and a private chiropractic report. The VA examinations consistently found no evidence of radiculopathy, with normal bilateral straight leg raising tests and normal reflex, sensory, and strength testing. Although the September 2024 VA examiner initially diagnosed RLE and LLE sciatic radiculopathy, subsequent clarification indicated no current diagnosis of bilateral sciatica and confirmed normal sciatic nerves. VA treatment records also did not reveal complaints or a diagnosis of radiculopathy, with the veteran denying radiating pain on multiple occasions. The Board found a private chiropractic report to be of low probative value due to a lack of rationale and failure to address contrary evidence. The Board also noted the veteran's inconsistent statements regarding lower extremity symptoms, finding his reports of pain, numbness, and tingling lacked credibility. Consequently, the Board concluded that the evidence persuasively weighed against a current diagnosis or functional impairment related to RLE or LLE radiculopathy, thus denying service connection. The benefit-of-the-doubt rule was found not applicable as the evidence was not in approximate balance.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of RLE radiculopathy; VA examinations showed no evidence of radiculopathy; Veteran's statements lacked credibility

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26028413
Decision Date: 03/30/26	Archive Date: 03/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250331-533381
DATE: March 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for right lower extremity (RLE) radiculopathy is denied.

Service connection for left lower extremity (LLE) radiculopathy is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The weight of the evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of radiculopathy of the right lower extremity.

2. The weight of the evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of radiculopathy of the left lower extremity.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for RLE radiculopathy are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for LLE radiculopathy 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 with the United States Army from June 2017 to June 2021. 

This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2025 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which denied service connection for RLE radiculopathy and LLE radiculopathy. The Veteran's VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) was received in March 2025. The Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 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 claims, 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 

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury.  When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a).

Service connection for certain chronic diseases may be established on a presumptive basis by showing that such a disease manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. § §§ 1112, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). In such cases, the disease is presumed under the law to have had its onset in service
 proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury.  When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a).

Service connection for certain chronic diseases may be established on a presumptive basis by showing that such a disease manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. § §§ 1112, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). In such cases, the disease is presumed under the law to have had its onset in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

1. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity (RLE) radiculopathy.

2. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity (LLE) radiculopathy. 

The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The Veteran asserts that he has RLE and LLE radiculopathy secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine disability.

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease; or service-connected disability.

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of RLE or LLE peripheral neuropathy or radiculopathy and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

The Veteran was provided VA Back examinations in July 2022 and April 2024. During both examinations, the examiner provided a diagnosis of lumbosacral strain but found no evidence of radiculopathy. Straight leg raising tests were negative bilaterally. Sensory, reflex and strength testing was normal.

The Veteran was provided a VA Peripheral Nerves examination in September 2024. The Veteran reported pain from his back radiating to his legs. The examiner provided diagnoses of RLE and LLE sciatic radiculopathy. The examiner indicated that the Veteran had moderate constant and intermittent pain, moderate paresthesias and/or dysesthesias, and mild numbness affecting his bilateral lower extremities. Reflex, sensory, and muscle testing was normal bilaterally. Notably, the examiner marked that the Veteran's bilateral sciatic nerves were normal.

In March 2025, the AOJ sought clarification from the September 2024 VA examiner as to whether the Veteran had bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy or whether his sciatic nerves were normal. The examiner clarified that there is no current diagnosis of bilateral sciatica, and that his sciatic nerve was correctly marked as normal.

VA treatment records reflect continued treatment for back pain but do not reveal complaints or a diagnosis of, radiculopathy. On multiple occasions, the Veteran affirmatively denied radiating pain. See VA treatment records dated in November 2023 and March 2024.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran obtained a July 2024 Report of Consultation and Examination authored by Megan Traficante, D.C., a self-described "Diagnostic Consultant." This chiropractor's report detailed numerous medical conditions outside the field of chiropractic medicine, including headaches, sleep apnea, rhinitis, traumatic brain injury, and erectile dysfunction conditions. The chiropractor stated that the Veteran has bilateral lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy which is directly caused by his service-connected low back disability.

The Board finds that the chiropractor's opinion is of low probative value. The chiropractor failed to provide any rationale for her opinion. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) (holding that a medical opinion must be supported by an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions. A "medical examination report must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two." Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008). In fact, there is no indication that the chiropractor reviewed any of the other relevant evidence of record. The chiropractor did not address the significant negative evidence of record showing that the Veteran does not have bilateral sciatic radiculopathy.

Conversely, the Board finds that the VA examination reports
, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) (holding that a medical opinion must be supported by an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions. A "medical examination report must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two." Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008). In fact, there is no indication that the chiropractor reviewed any of the other relevant evidence of record. The chiropractor did not address the significant negative evidence of record showing that the Veteran does not have bilateral sciatic radiculopathy.

Conversely, the Board finds that the VA examination reports and opinions of record are adequate because the examiners thoroughly reviewed the claims file and discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a thorough supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008).

While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of LUE and RUE radiculopathy or peripheral neuropathy, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires evaluation using specialized medical education and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence.

For there to be any service connection, a current diagnosis of a disability must be present. The Board acknowledges that, where pain alone results in functional impairment, even if there is no identified underlying diagnosis, it can constitute a disability. However, subjective pain in and of itself will not establish a current disability. Consideration should be given to the impact, or lack thereof, from pain, focusing on evidence of functional limitation caused by pain. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir., 2018). Here, the record does not indicate that there is functional limitation related to the Veteran's reported lower extremity pain, numbness, and tingling. Further, not all observable or reportable symptomatology results in a disability or rises to the level of impairment of working ability. 

Moreover, the Veteran has made several inconsistent statements regarding his lower extremity symptoms. As noted above, VA treatment records consistently reflect that the Veteran denied radiating back pain and reflex, strength and sensory testing has been normal throughout the appeal period. As such, the Veteran's reports of lower extremity pain, numbness, and tingling during the July 2024 private chiropractic examination and the September 2024 VA examination lack credibility and are of diminished probative value.

Accordingly, the probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of, or functional impairment related to, RLE or LLE radiculopathy or peripheral neuropathy. As such, the cornerstone element of service connection has not been met, and service connection for RLE or LLE radiculopathy or peripheral neuropathy cannot be established.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applicable as the evidence is not in approximate balance and entitlement to service connection for RLE and LLE peripheral neuropathy or radiculopathy is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

 

Paulette Vance Burton

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Modesto, Victor

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.