DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

Summary

The Veteran served in the Air Force from June 1993 to March 2004, with service periods including October 2001 to September 2002 and March 2003 to March 2004. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for a cervical spine disability and seeks readjudication based on new evidence. The Board found that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability, which is already service-connected, is at least as likely as not related to his current lumbar spine disability. A private medical opinion provided a positive nexus, linking the lumbar spine condition to the service-connected right ankle disability. Consequently, secondary service connection for the lumbar spine disability was granted. Regarding the cervical spine claim, the Board reviewed the August 2025 private examination, which suggested a connection between the lumbar and cervical spine conditions. This evidence was deemed new and relevant, warranting readjudication of the cervical spine claim. However, the case was remanded because the VA failed to provide an adequate examination to address the cervical spine disability and its potential relationship to service or the service-connected lumbar spine condition. The Board noted the Veteran's diagnosis of cervicalgia and spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine, and ordered a new VA examination to determine the nexus for the cervical spine condition.

Rationale

Private medical opinion found probative; Positive nexus between lumbar spine and service-connected right ankle; Secondary service connection criteria met

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037118
Decision Date: 04/21/26	Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 260110-622429
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is granted.

New and relevant evidence has been received and the claim for service connection for a cervical spine disability is readjudicated.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's lumbar spine disability is at least as likely as not related to his service-connected right ankle.

2. An April 2025 rating decision denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for cervical spine disability, evidence received since the April 2025 rating decision is new and relevant and tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for secondary service connection for a lumbar spine disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1119, 1120; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

2. The criteria for readjudicating the claim of service connection for a cervical spine disability have been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from June 1993 to October 2000, from October 2001 to September 2002, and from March 2003 to March 2004.

The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. The AMA became effective on February 19, 2019, and applies to all initial decision issued after this date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400 (a)(1). The Veteran claims were initially denied in an October 2025 rating decision. Thus, the AMA applies. The Veteran then submitted a Board Appeal Notice of Disagreement (VA Form 10182) received by VA in January 2026, in which he chose the "Direct Review" Lane.

As explained on Form 10182, per the "Direct Review" lane, the review is based only on evidence of record at the time of the October 2025 rating decision.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). To establish entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits, a Veteran must show: "(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 during service-the so-called "nexus" requirement." Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

Service connection may alternatively be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to, or the result of, a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). Secondary service connection may also be established for a disorder which is aggravated by a service-connected disability; compensation may be provided for the degree of disability (but only that degree) over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (b); Allen v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 374 (1995).

In order to prevail on the issue of secondary service connection, the record must show: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998); see also Allen, supra.

1. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability

At the onset, the Board recognizes the favorable findings of the October 2025 rating decision which found that the Veteran had a current disability and his service-connected disabilities include a right ankle disability.

Turning to the last element, a nexus between his current disability and a service-connected disability, the Board finds that the August 2025 private medical opinion is probative on this matter. In this private medical opinion, the physician summarized the nature of
; and (3) medical nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998); see also Allen, supra.

1. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability

At the onset, the Board recognizes the favorable findings of the October 2025 rating decision which found that the Veteran had a current disability and his service-connected disabilities include a right ankle disability.

Turning to the last element, a nexus between his current disability and a service-connected disability, the Board finds that the August 2025 private medical opinion is probative on this matter. In this private medical opinion, the physician summarized the nature of the Veteran's right ankle disability and used this information to form his positive opinion which related the Veteran's lumbar spine disability to his service-connected right ankle disability. The private examiner provided a detailed explanation of the nature of the Veteran's right ankle disability and how this particular nature led to his lumbar spine disability.  See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (Most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning and the Board must be able to conclude that a medical expert has applied valid medical analysis to the significant facts of the particular case in order to reach the conclusion submitted in the medical opinion).

Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record is in favor of the claim, thus secondary service connection for a lumbar spine disability is granted.

2. New and relevant evidence has been received and the claim for service connection for a cervical spine disability is readjudicated

A claimant or his or her authorized representative, if any, who disagrees with a prior VA decision may file a supplemental claim by submitting in writing or electronically a complete application on a form prescribed by the Secretary any time after the agency of original jurisdiction issues notice of a decision, regardless of whether the claim is pending or has become finally adjudicated. If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the agency of original jurisdiction will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. 

If new and relevant evidence is not presented or secured, the agency of original jurisdiction will issue a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence to readjudicate the claim. In determining whether new and relevant evidence is presented or secured, VA will consider any VA treatment records reasonably identified by the claimant and any evidence received by VA after VA issued notice of a decision on the claim and while the evidentiary record was closed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim. Relevant evidence includes evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 (a)(1). For VA to readjudicate the claim, the evidentiary record must include new and relevant evidence that was not of record as of the date of notice of the prior decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(b).

Merits

In this case, an April 2025 rating decision denied service connection for a cervical spine disability. In doing so, the AOJ found that there was no evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's claimed disability and his service. An October 2025 rating decision declined to readjudicate the claims for lack of new and relevant evidence and this decision appealed to the Board. Thus, the question before the Board is whether new and relevant evidence has been submitted since the April 2025 rating decision.

A review of the record shows that new and relevant evidence has been submitted since the April denial. Specifically, the August 2025 private examination which implies that the Veteran lumbar spine disability and cervical spine disability are interconnected. This evidence could be used as a basis to link the Veteran's current disability to his active service. Therefore, the Board finds the evidence is new since it has not been previously considered by decision makers. The evidence is also relevant as it tends to prove or disprove the matter at issue, an in-service event. Therefore, readjudication of the claim of service connection for a cervical spine disability is warranted.

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded.

Unfortunately, before adjudication can proceed with the claim for service connection for a cervical spine disability, a pre-decisional duty to assist error must be addressed. Namely, the Veteran should be provided with a VA examination to investigate his contention that his cervical disability is related to his active duty service.

The Veteran's August 2025 private examiner report details how the Veterans
 since it has not been previously considered by decision makers. The evidence is also relevant as it tends to prove or disprove the matter at issue, an in-service event. Therefore, readjudication of the claim of service connection for a cervical spine disability is warranted.

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded.

Unfortunately, before adjudication can proceed with the claim for service connection for a cervical spine disability, a pre-decisional duty to assist error must be addressed. Namely, the Veteran should be provided with a VA examination to investigate his contention that his cervical disability is related to his active duty service.

The Veteran's August 2025 private examiner report details how the Veterans lumbar spine disability may be related to his cervical spine disability through the biomechanical nature of these disabilities; unfortunately, the examiner never addresses the cervical spine disability directly. Moreover, while the October 2025 rating decision detailed that the Veteran has been diagnosed with cervicalgia it failed to identify that the Veteran was also diagnosed with spondylolisthesis of the cervical spine in a May 2025 VA imaging report. The Board is not competent to address a protentional relationship between his cervical spine disability and lumbar spine disability and finds that a VA examination should have been provided to the Veteran. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for appropriate VA examination. The claims folder (including a copy of this remand) must be provided to and reviewed by the examiners as part of the examination. All tests, studies, and evaluations should be performed as deemed necessary by the examiners, and the results of any testing must be included in the examination report

(A) CERVICAL SPINE:

(i) After considering the pertinent information in the record in its entirety and taking a detailed history from the Veteran regarding onset, the VA examiner should identify any cervical spine disabilities present.

(ii) Then, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that any cervical disabilities identified were incurred or aggravated by his active duty or are otherwise etiologically related to her active service. Explain why or why not.

(iii) The examiner should also opine as to whether it is at las as likely as not that any cervical spine disabilities identified were caused by or aggravated by the Veteran's service connected lumbar spine disability. Explain why or why not.

*With regard to aggravation, the Board notes that per a decision from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, "any incremental increase in disability-any additional impairment of earning capacity-in non-service-connected disabilities resulting from service-connected conditions regardless of its permanence" constitutes aggravation. Ward v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 233, 240 (2019).

2. Ensure that the examination report complies with this remand and the questions presented in this request.

3. Readjudicate the claim on appeal.

 

 

GAYLE STROMMEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Acosta, J. 

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.