INTERVERTEBRAL DISC SYNDROME

A. ISHIZAWAR · 2026 · Case ID: A26030936

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from October 1987 to June 1990 and again from January 1991 to February 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for a low back disability, a cervical spine condition, a right hip condition, and a left leg nerve condition. The veteran contended that these conditions were either incurred in service or secondary to his service-connected low back disability. The Board reviewed the veteran's service treatment records, which showed some complaints of back and neck pain in service, particularly after a motor vehicle accident in June 1989. However, these records indicated that the conditions resolved without residuals before separation, and the veteran denied back pain in a December 2015 VA examination. A January 2025 VA examination diagnosed a lumbosacral strain and cervical strain, but the examiner opined that the current conditions were less likely than not related to service, citing a lack of chronic complaints or ongoing treatment from service and the long gap between service and seeking medical attention for these issues. The Board found the medical evidence weighed against a service connection, inferring that the in-service issues resolved and current conditions were separate post-service problems. For the hip and nerve conditions, the Board noted the lack of service treatment record complaints and the VA examiner's negative nexus opinions, further emphasizing that secondary service connection could not be established without a service-connected primary condition. Consequently, all claims were denied.

Rationale

Weight of probative medical evidence against service connection; In-service back strain resolved without residuals; Current condition likely due to post-service factors

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250618-557785

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26030936
Decision Date: 04/06/26 Archive Date: 04/06/26

DOCKET NO. 250618-557785
DATE: April 6, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a low back disability is denied.

Service connection for a cervical spine condition is denied.

Service connection for a right hip condition is denied.

Service connection for a left leg nerve condition is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1. The weight of the probative medical evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran's current low back disability is related to any in-service back injury or is otherwise caused by or related to his military service.

2. The weight of the probative medical evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran's current cervical spine disability is related to any in-service back injury or is otherwise caused by or related to his military service.

3. The Veteran is not service-connected for a low back disability, the underlying disability for which the claim for a right hip condition is based upon; and the evidence also does not show that his right hip condition had onset in service.

4. The Veteran is not service-connected for a low back disability, the underlying disability for which the claim for a left leg nerve condition is based upon; and the evidence also does not show that his left leg nerve condition had onset in service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for a low back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for right hip condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

4. The criteria for service connection for left leg nerve condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1987 to June 1990 and from January 1991 to February 1991.

These matters are on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2025 rating decision.

The Veteran's claims were denied originally in a May 2022 rating decision. In December 2022, the Veteran requested readjudication of claims pertaining to a low back disability, a cervical spine condition, a right hip condition, and a left lower extremity nerve condition by submitting a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim. In January 2023, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a supplemental claim decision, which found that new and relevant evidence had been received and denied the claims based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision.

In January 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, and requested readjudication of the service connection claims for a lumbar spine disability, cervical spine disability, left leg radiculopathy, and right hip disorder addressed in a January 2023 rating decision. In March 2025, the AOJ issued the supplemental claim decision on appeal, which found that new and relevant evidence had been received and denied the claims based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision.

In the June 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 rating decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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

Generally, 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, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated in service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; but see Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (holding all that is needed is a "but for" causation or aggravation to show entitlement to secondary service connection).

Lumbar Spine Disability

The Veteran contends that he developed a chronic low back disability as a result of an in-service injury.

In support of his claim, the Veteran's mother submitted a December 2022 letter, recalling that the Veteran sustained injuries to his neck and lower back while on active-duty service. As a result of his injuries, she believed he had developed chronic problems with his neck and low back. See January 2025 Buddy/Lay Statement.

The Veteran's service treatment records reflect various complaints and treatment for back pain in service. On October 5, 1988, the Veteran was seen for back pain that had been present for a day after hurting his back lifting a part of a riding lawn mower. He added that two years prior, he had hurt his back after lifting a buffer and was subsequently seen by a chiropractor. Upon examination, he was diagnosed with a muscle strain of the low back and was treated with motrin and heat. He was also precluded from physical training, running, or lifting objects over 25 pounds for 5 days. On October 17, 1988, the Veteran returned for a follow-up appointment in which he demonstrated a full range of motion. However, he reported an inability to touch his toes due to continued low back pain. In November 1988, physical therapy notes showed that the Veteran was being treated for sharp pain, myofascial pain and tightness. In June 1989, the Veteran was seen again for back pain pursuant to a car accident. Upon collision, he was thrown backward against the headrest. Since the accident, he reported persistent back and neck pain, which were treated with pain medication.

Post service, treatment records dated December 2015 noted that the Veteran denied complaints of back and neck pain.

The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in January 2025. There, the Veteran told the examiner that he sustained a back injury while working on a cannon and upon seeking treatment in service he was diagnosed with a back strain. After evaluating the Veteran, the examiner diagnosed a lumbosacral strain with myofascial tightness/pain. The examiner then opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's current low back disability was related to his military service. Based on the Veteran's medical evidence, the examiner found a lack of substantiating evidence to support a nexus between the Veteran's current back strain and his service. The examiner noted that in October 1988, the Veteran sustained an injury to his back while lifting a part of a lawn mower. In seeking medical attention, he was treated for a back strain as x-rays revealed no other injury. After his
on a cannon and upon seeking treatment in service he was diagnosed with a back strain. After evaluating the Veteran, the examiner diagnosed a lumbosacral strain with myofascial tightness/pain. The examiner then opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's current low back disability was related to his military service. Based on the Veteran's medical evidence, the examiner found a lack of substantiating evidence to support a nexus between the Veteran's current back strain and his service. The examiner noted that in October 1988, the Veteran sustained an injury to his back while lifting a part of a lawn mower. In seeking medical attention, he was treated for a back strain as x-rays revealed no other injury. After his physical therapy sessions from October 1988 to November 1988, his myofascial tightness and muscle strain was resolved. The Veteran was seen again in June 1989 for back and neck pain after a motor vehicle accident. He was treated with Robaxin and Motrin. After his treatment, the Veteran's service treatment records were silent for continued complaints relating to his low back. Upon his reentry into service in 1991, there was no medical evidence of further back problems. There was no evidence of evaluation, treatment, radiographs, or diagnosis that required ongoing care. It was not until 36 years after service in which the Veteran sought medical attention for a lumbar spine condition. In summary, while the Veteran's service treatment records showed evidence of back strain on two occasions, the conditions resolved without further treatment.

In reviewing the totality of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for the Veteran's low back disability.

The Board has considered his assertion but finds the medical evidence fails to support this contention. To the extent that the Veteran and his mother believes that his low back disability is related to his service, they are competent to provide statements concerning factual matters of which they have first-hand knowledge and of what the Veteran experiences through his senses. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). However, as to the etiology of the Veteran's back disability, the issue of causation of such a medically complex condition is a medical determination outside the realm of common knowledge of any lay person. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, although the Board has carefully considered the lay contentions that the Veteran's back condition is related to his service, the Board ultimately affords the medical evidence greater probative weight.

The Board is mindful of the Veteran's in-service complaint of back pain in October 1988 with physical therapy sessions between October 1988 and November 1988. The lack of continued complaints suggests that the Veteran's back strain ultimately resolved without residuals. While the Veteran returned to sick call in June 1989, the Board notes that the nature of the complaint was related to a new injury caused by his motor vehicle accident in June 1989. X-rays revealed normal results with vertebra intact and intervertebral spaces well maintained. He was treated accordingly and did not return for any persistent symptoms associated with back pain. After his first period of active duty, the Veteran returned to service in January 1991, with no indication of any continued back pain. The Veteran did not exhibit any back problems until several years after service. In fact, the Veteran was seen on multiple occasions at his VA Medical Center (VAMC) for various medical conditions unrelated to his back pain. In December 2015, he even specifically denied having any issues with his back. It was not until more than three decades later wherein he reported back pain. Therefore, the Board may reasonably infer that the Veteran's in-service back problems had resolved without residuals and that his current condition is separate and distinct from his in-service back injuries.

Finally, other than the Veteran's own general assertion that his current back condition is related to his service, he has not submitted any medical or other competent evidence to support a positive nexus.

Accordingly, service connection for a low back disability is not warranted.

Cervical Spine Disability

The Veteran contends that he sustained a chronic neck condition as a result of his military service.

The Veteran's service treatment records reflect a complaint of neck pain in June 1989 pursuant to a motor vehicle accident. X-rays revealed an intact vertebral with intervertebral spaces well maintained. He was treated accordingly with pain medication. Subsequent treatment records are silent for any persistent complaints pertaining to his cervical
ine Disability

The Veteran contends that he sustained a chronic neck condition as a result of his military service.

Post service treatment records showed that at a December 2015 visit to his VAMC, the Veteran denied any stiffness or pain in the neck area.

The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in January 2025. There, the Veteran told the examiner that his current neck pain stemmed from an in-service traffic accident. After examining the Veteran, the examiner diagnosed a cervical strain. The examiner then opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's current neck condition was due to his military service as there was a lack of substantiating evidence supporting a nexus. Without evidence of chronicity of care during service, the examiner opined it was more likely that the cause of his current condition was related to a post service illness or injury. As rationale, the examiner acknowledged that the Veteran had sustained neck pain as a result of a motor vehicle accident in 1989. His x-rays at the time showed no abnormalities. He was treated with pain medication and muscle relaxers. Subsequent records did not show that he returned for persistent symptoms. The examiner highlighted that there was no waiver noted in the Veteran's medical records for a cervical spine/neck condition limiting or prohibiting from service during his second period of active duty. While his mother submitted a letter attesting to his neck injury, the examiner found that the objective evidence did not support a chronic neck condition as a result of the June 1989 accident, as the neck pain after the accident resolved. Post service, the Veteran was not seen for neck pain again until 2025, approximately 36 years after service.

Similar to the low back claim, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence does not support the Veteran's contention that his current cervical spine pain/condition is related to his service, particularly his in-service motor vehicle accident.

The Board is mindful of the Veteran's in-service complaint of neck pain caused by the June 1989 accident. X-rays taken at the time did not reveal any spinal injury or other abnormalities suggestive of a chronic injury. Rather, he was treated for muscle pain with muscle relaxants and pain medication. He was advised to return to sick call for persistent symptoms. As the Veteran did not return for any complaints relating to persistent symptoms, the Board can reasonably infer that his neck pain from the accident had resolved without residuals. Moreover, upon reentering active duty in 1991, there was no indication of any lingering or persistent symptoms of neck pain caused by the accident. The Veteran also denied stiffness or pain in the neck area when seeking VA treatment in December 2015.

To the extent that the Veteran and his mother believe that his neck disability is related to his service, they are competent to provide statements concerning factual matters of which they have first-hand knowledge and of what the Veteran experiences through his senses. Barr, 21 Vet. App. 303. However, as to the etiology of his cervical spine disability, the issue of causation of such a medically complex condition is a medical determination outside the realm of common knowledge of any lay person. Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372. Thus, although the Board has carefully considered the lay contentions that the Veteran's neck condition is related to his service, the Board ultimately affords the medical evidence greater probative weight.

Thus, the Board relies on the January 2025 VA medical opinion, which found against a positive nexus. In reviewing the overall evidence, the examiner explained that the Veteran's June 1989 neck pain from the accident was an acute injury, which ultimately resolved before his separation. It was not until several years after service when the Veteran reported a different neck pain, strongly suggesting that the post service neck pain was a separate and distinct condition than the neck pain he experience in June 1989. The Veteran has not submitted any medical or other competent evidence to suggest the contrary.

The weight of the probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding a link between the Veteran's neck disability and his active service. Therefore, entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107
explained that the Veteran's June 1989 neck pain from the accident was an acute injury, which ultimately resolved before his separation. It was not until several years after service when the Veteran reported a different neck pain, strongly suggesting that the post service neck pain was a separate and distinct condition than the neck pain he experience in June 1989. The Veteran has not submitted any medical or other competent evidence to suggest the contrary.

Right Hip Condition

The Veteran is currently seeking service connection for a right hip condition secondary to his low back disability.

The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any complaints relating to hip pain. Despite the Veteran's multiple complaints of low back pain in service, he made no mention of radiating pain in his lower extremities.

The Veteran was provided with an examination in January 2025. In addition to asserting that his current right hip condition was caused by his low back condition, he told the physician that it was also linked to an in-service knee injury. While completing physical training in service, he hyper-extended his left knee, which led to left hip pain. The left hip pain ultimately caused the development of his right hip condition. Over the years, his right hip pain continued to progress and worsen, resulting in his current condition. After evaluating the Veteran, the examiner diagnosed a right hip strain and opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's current right hip condition was related to his military service. First, the examiner stated that since the Veteran is not service connected for a lumbar spine condition, secondary service connection for a right hip condition is not permissible. Next, while the Veteran asserted that he developed a right hip condition in service as a direct result of his right knee and left hip condition caused by physical training, his service treatment records were silent for a right hip condition. The examiner noted ample evidence of other orthopedic conditions such as neck and back pain that ultimately resolved prior to his separation. However, there was no evidence of complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of a right hip condition until approximately 36 years after his separation. Furthermore, the examiner opined the Veteran's right hip condition was more likely caused by overuse, the aging process, and sitting incorrectly for prolonged periods of time, rather than the result of an in-service injury.

Overall, the Board finds that evidence fails to support the grant of service connection for the Veteran's right hip condition.

As the Veteran is not service-connected for a low back condition, service connection on a secondary basis may not be established for his right hip condition. While the Veteran asserted at the January 2025 VA examination that his right hip condition may have had onset in service along with the injury to his left knee and left hip, the evidence does not support this contention. As noted by the January 2025 VA examiner, the Veteran's service treatment records did not reflect any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for a right hip condition. As a result, the examiner may reasonably deduce that the Veteran did not incur a right hip condition in service. It follows that the Board is also permitted to render a reasonable inference that the absence of medical evidence and lay complaints referable to a hip condition is probative evidence that a hip condition was not likely present in service. See Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 272 (2015).

Based on the totality of the evidence, the VA examiner found that the Veteran's current hip condition did not have onset in service, but rather was more likely due to his post service activities, injuries, and the aging process. The Veteran has not submitted any medical evidence or opinion, or other competent evidence, to the contrary.

The weight of the probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding a link between the Veteran's hip disability and his active service. Therefore, entitlement to service connection for a right hip condition is denied and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); C.F.R. § 3.102.

Nerve Condition of the Left Lower Extremity

The Veteran is currently seeking service connection for a nerve condition secondary to his low back disability.

As such, the preliminary question for the Board is whether the Veteran's primary condition is service-connected. However, as held above, the Board has denied service connection for the Veteran's low back condition.

The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any complaints relating to the left lower extremity (apart from the left
hip disability and his active service. Therefore, entitlement to service connection for a right hip condition is denied and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); C.F.R. § 3.102.

Nerve Condition of the Left Lower Extremity

The Veteran is currently seeking service connection for a nerve condition secondary to his low back disability.

The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any complaints relating to the left lower extremity (apart from the left knee for which he is already service-connected). Despite the Veteran's multiple complaints of low back pain in service, he made no mention of radiating pain in his lower extremities.

During a VA examination conducted in January 2025, the Veteran was diagnosed with a left posterior interosseous syndrome with neuropathy (a condition of the left upper extremity). While the Veteran demonstrated mild constant pain and numbness in the left lower extremity, he was not diagnosed a nerve condition such as neuropathy or radiculopathy of the lower extremities.

In a separate examination report, the examiner noted a diagnosis of sciatica of the right lower extremity. Upon evaluation, the Veteran demonstrated mild numbness and mild level of constant pain. However, further testing revealed evidence of mild incomplete paralysis of both the left and right sciatic nerves. Nevertheless, the examiner went on to offer a negative opinion on the Veteran's right sciatica and its relationship with the Veteran's military service. Despite the Veteran's pursuit for a service connection claim for a left leg nerve condition, the examiner emphasized that he was not service-connected for a low back condition, and thus, without service connection for a primary disability, secondary service connection may not be established in this case. Next, the examiner explained that the Veteran's service treatment records were silent for complaints of a sciatic nerve condition. While the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a lumbar strain, the condition was unrelated to his in-service back strain. Thus, the examiner opined that the Veteran's current sciatic nerve symptom was an acute condition related to his current lumbar strain, both unrelated to service.

The Board is mindful of the error made by the January 2025 VA examiner as he addressed the Veteran's right leg nerve condition rather than his claimed left leg nerve. However, the Board finds that such error is not prejudicial to the Veteran at this time because the Veteran has not been service-connected for his low back condition, the underlying disability for which the claim for a left leg nerve condition is based on. See Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309, 314 (1993).

The Board has also considered whether the Veteran's service connection claim may prevail on a direct basis but finds that it does not.

As noted above, the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any complaints or diagnosis suggestive of radiculopathy or neuropathy of either leg, despite the Veteran's complaint and treatment for low back pain. While the Veteran visited sick call for a variety of reasons during his active duty service, he did not complain of any radicular nerve pain. Upon separating from service, the examination found no clinical abnormalities of the lower extremities, nor did the Veteran report in his medical history any radicular symptoms in his legs. In fact, the earliest clinical evidence of a nerve condition in the left leg was not until his January 2025 VA examination.

The claims file does not contain any medical opinion that indicates that the Veteran's left leg nerve condition had onset in service or is otherwise related to service.

Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for a left lower extremity nerve condition is denied.

A. ISHIZAWAR

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Yeh, Nicole

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