DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

HARVEY P. ROBERTS · 2026 · Case ID: A26034421

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran served from November 1972 to July 1979. The Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for a back disability, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral ankle disabilities, including Achilles tendinitis. The Board granted service connection for the back disability, finding the evidence to be in approximate balance and resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor, citing persuasive private medical opinion over unfavorable VA opinions. Service connection for bilateral radiculopathy was also granted as secondary to the service-connected back condition, based on medical opinions linking the radiculopathy to the back. For the ankle claims, the Board denied service connection. While in-service records showed ankle complaints and treatment in January 1973, subsequent records were normal or showed unrelated post-service injuries. The Board found a March 2024 VA opinion unpersuasive due to inaccurate factual basis, but found a October 2024 VA opinion persuasive, noting the in-service ankle issue was acute and not chronic, and that current ankle problems were likely due to post-service injuries. The Board found the Veteran's lay assertions regarding etiology not competent, assigning greater weight to the VA opinion supported by contemporaneous records. The Board found the evidence against service connection for the ankle claims, denying them.

Rationale

Persuasive weight of evidence supports relation to service; Evidence in approximate balance; Resolved reasonable doubt in Veteran's favor

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

251210-612478

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26034421
Decision Date: 04/14/26 Archive Date: 04/14/26

DOCKET NO. 251210-612478
DATE: April 14, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy, secondary to a service-connected back disability, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, secondary to a service-connected back disability, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability, to include Achilles tendinitis, is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability, to include Achilles tendinitis, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The persuasive weight of the evidence supports a finding that a back disability is related to service.

2. The persuasive weight of the evidence supports a finding that right lower extremity radiculopathy is secondary to the Veteran's service-connected back disability.

3. The persuasive weight of the evidence supports a finding that left lower extremity radiculopathy is secondary to the Veteran's service-connected back disability.

4. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against a finding that a right ankle disability had its onset in or is otherwise related to service.

5. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against a finding that a left ankle disability had its onset in or is otherwise related to service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1972 to July 1979.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2024 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran timely submitted VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement). 38 C.F.R. § 19.2. The Veteran elected the evidence submission lane with no hearing and a period of 90 days to submit additional evidence.

Because of the Veteran's election of review, the Board cannot consider evidence submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and before the VA Form 10182 was received, or evidence submitted more than 90 days after the VA Form 10182 was received. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303.

The Veteran submitted VA Form 10182 on December 10, 2025, and the Board placed the appeal on the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider evidence of record at the time of the rating decision and evidence submitted into the record up to 90 days after December 10, 2025, the date on which the Board received the Veteran's VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303.

If evidence was associated with the claims file during a period of time when additional evidence was not allowed, the Board has not considered that evidence in this decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. If the Veteran wants VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board cannot consider, the
, and the Board placed the appeal on the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider evidence of record at the time of the rating decision and evidence submitted into the record up to 90 days after December 10, 2025, the date on which the Board received the Veteran's VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303.

If evidence was associated with the claims file during a period of time when additional evidence was not allowed, the Board has not considered that evidence in this decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. If the Veteran wants VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board cannot consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim, VA Form 20-0995, and submit or identify that 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.

Remand is permitted only to cure pre-decisional errors in VA's duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating the claim, and to correct errors in VA's duty to satisfy a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the Veteran's claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802.

Service Connection

Service connection will be established for disability caused by disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310. In order to establish service connection for a claimed disability, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) evidence, generally medical, of a causal relationship between the disease or injury in service and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999).

Service connection may also be established for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Cosman v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 503 (1992). The disease entity for which service connection is sought must be chronic rather than acute and transitory in nature. For the showing of chronic disease in service, a combination of manifestations must exist sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word chronic. Furthermore, service incurrence will be presumed for certain chronic diseases if manifest to a compensable degree within the year after active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

A disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury shall be service-connected. When service connection is established for a secondary disability, the secondary disability shall be considered a part of the original disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Secondary service connection may also be established for a nonservice-connected disability, which is aggravated by a service-connected disability. In that instance, the Veteran is compensated for the degree of disability over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995).

1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability

The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for a back disability.

A March 2024 VA examination diagnosed degenerative disc disease and bilateral radiculopathy. The examiner opined that the back disability was not the result of service as the service medical records did not show reports or treatments of back problems or Achilles tendonitis while the Veteran was in service.

An October 2024 VA examiner opined that a back disability was not the result of service, and a post-service etiology was more likely. As a rationale, the examiner stated that the service medical records only showed an acute back issue in service and there was a lapse of treatment after separation from service.

In a February 2026 letter, a private orthopedic surgeon cited to medical literature, noted the Veteran's duties in service, discussed the Veteran's medical history, and opined that the Veteran's back disability was related to service. The examiner also opined that the Veteran's radiculopathy was the result of the Veteran's back disability
treatments of back problems or Achilles tendonitis while the Veteran was in service.

The Board finds the medical opinions equally persuasive regarding the issue of whether the Veteran's back disability is related to service. The Board finds that after resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the favorable and unfavorable evidence is at least approximately balanced regarding the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a back disability. Further, the Board notes that it is barred from developing additional evidence for the purpose of obtaining evidence against a claimant's case. Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305 (2003).

Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence shows that it is as likely as not that a current back disability is related to service. As service connection for a back disability is warranted, the claim is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

2. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy

3. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy

The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for bilateral radiculopathy.

A disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury shall be service connected. When service connection is established for a secondary disability, the secondary disability shall be considered a part of the original disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Secondary service connection may also be established for a nonservice-connected disability, which is aggravated by a service-connected disability. In that instance, the Veteran is compensated for the degree of disability over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995).

Because service connection has been established for a back disability in this decision and doctors have related the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy to the Veteran's back disability, the Board finds that service connection for right and left lower extremity radiculopathy, secondary to the service-connected back disability, is warranted.

Accordingly, as the evidence shows that bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is related to service, service connection is warranted for right and left lower extremity radiculopathy, and the claims are granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

1. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability, to include Achilles tendinitis

2. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability, to include Achilles tendinitis

The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for right and left ankle disabilities, to include bilateral Achilles tendinitis.

The service medical records show that the Veteran was treated for right ankle tendonitis, left ankle pain, and possible left Achilles tendonitis in January 1973. A January 1976 clinical examination of the Veteran's lower extremities was normal. Although the Veteran reported foot trouble, a July 1979 clinical examination of the lower extremities at separation from service was normal. In an accompanying report of medical history, the Veteran indicated having foot trouble.

The post-service medical records do not show any diagnoses of right or left Achilles tendon issues. In March 2001, the Veteran was treated for a loose body, ulceration, and pain in the right ankle after being hit by a car.

In March 2004, the Veteran twisted the right ankle and was diagnosed with ankle sprain. In August 2018, the Veteran reported ankle pain and X-rays showed left ankle soft tissue swelling, bilateral calcaneal spurring, and atherosclerosis of the ankles.

A March 2024 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's Achilles tendonitis was not the result of service because the Veteran's service medical records did not show diagnosis or treatment for an ankle condition
having foot trouble.

The Board finds that opinion not persuasive as the service medical records showed ankle complaints and treatment and thus that examination was based on an inaccurate factual basis.

An October 2024 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's Achilles tendinitis was not the result of service because the January 1973 treatment in service was for an acute condition. The examiner noted that there were no reports or treatments for Achilles tendonitis or ankle problems until many years after separation from service. The examiner stated that the evidence was not sufficient to substantiate a claim of chronic Achilles tendinitis. The examiner opined that the Veteran's disabilities were likely the result of a post-service injury.

The Board finds that entitlement to service connection is not warranted. The Board finds the October 2024 VA examination report to be persuasive and the most probative of the issue at hand and dispositive of the claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral ankle disabilities. The probative value of medical evidence is based on the physician's knowledge and skill in analyzing the data, and the medical conclusions reached; as is true of any evidence, the credibility and weight to be attached to medical opinions are within the province of the Board. Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467 (1993).

The October 2024 opinion was provided by a trained medical professional and was supported by a detailed rationale, after considering the Veteran's contentions, review of the claims file, and consideration of the Veteran's medical history. Moreover, the Board finds that the examiner's opinion was supported by the contemporaneous medical evidence, which included the Veteran's own reports. The examiner opined that the Veteran's ankle injury in service was acute in nature. The contemporaneous medical records showed that the Veteran reported and was treated for ankle pain in January 1973. There are no other records for reports of or treatments for ankle pain during service or for many years after separation from service.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's reports related to not reporting problems in service and the orthopedic surgeon's February 2026 notation that the Veteran used alcohol and cocaine in place of going to sick call. However, the service medical records show that the Veteran reported and was treated for several ailments in service, to include ankle pain. However, the Veteran did not report any ankle problems after January 1973. In a July 1979 Report of Medical History, the Veteran reported ear, nose, and throat trouble; sinusitis; head injury; shortness of breath; pain in chest; hernia; and foot trouble. The Board finds it implausible that the Veteran would have had chronic ankle pain and he would not have reported it just like he reported ankle pain in January 1973, and other ailments after January 1973. Additionally, the Board finds the Veteran's concerns would not have prevented the Veteran from reporting ankle pain at the time the Veteran separated from service, as he reported other musculoskeletal ailments.

The Veteran did not report ankle pain until 2001, nearly 22 years after separation from service. The Board notes that when the Veteran reported ankle pain, it was related to contemporaneous injuries. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence of record supports the October 2024 VA examination finding that the Veteran's ankle injury in service was acute and not chronic. The evidence of record also supports a finding that current ankle disabilities, to include Achilles tendonitis, are more likely related to post-service injuries.

The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, Veteran has not been shown to possess medical training and expertise necessary to address etiology in the present case. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran's lay assertions regarding the etiology of ankle disabilities are not competent, and the Board assigns the Veteran's assertions little to no probative or persuasive weight or value. The Board assigns greater probative value
record also supports a finding that current ankle disabilities, to include Achilles tendonitis, are more likely related to post-service injuries.

The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, Veteran has not been shown to possess medical training and expertise necessary to address etiology in the present case. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran's lay assertions regarding the etiology of ankle disabilities are not competent, and the Board assigns the Veteran's assertions little to no probative or persuasive weight or value. The Board assigns greater probative value to the October 2024 opinion, which was supported by contemporaneous medical and lay evidence.

Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence of record is against a finding that any right and left ankle disabilities, to include Achilles tendonitis, are related to service. Accordingly, as the persuasive weight of the evidence is against entitlement to service connection for ankle disabilities, the claims are denied. The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and that there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Harvey P. Roberts

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board E.O., 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