PERIPHERAL NERVE CONDITIONS

CHRISTOPHER SEPPANEN · 2026 · Case ID: A26037647

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran served from September 1982 to September 1993. This case involves an appeal for service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity and adjustment disorder. The Board denied service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, finding that while a current disability existed, the evidence did not establish in-service incurrence or aggravation, nor a clear causal relationship to service. Service treatment records showed normal lower extremities during service, and the Veteran reported the radiculopathy developed after service due to a workplace injury in 2000. A December 2023 VA examination opined that the condition was less likely than not related to service, noting a lack of substantiating evidence and that the radiculopathy stemmed from a post-service low back disability. The Board found this opinion most probative. Entitlement to service connection for adjustment disorder was remanded. The Board noted a June 2024 VA treatment record mentioning "other mental disorders" and the Veteran's October 2024 statement about difficulties adjusting to civilian life, including sleep and anger issues. The Board found a pre-decisional duty to assist error, as a VA examination was not afforded to evaluate the adjustment disorder claim. The case was remanded for a VA examination to assess the etiology of the adjustment disorder in relation to service.

Rationale

No in-service incurrence or aggravation found; Post-service workplace injury identified as likely etiology; VA examiner opinion found less likely than not related to service

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

251223-617853

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037647
Decision Date: 04/22/26 Archive Date: 04/22/26

DOCKET NO. 251223-617853
DATE: April 22, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for adjustment disorder is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's radiculopathy of the left lower extremity did not manifest in-service and is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to an in-service event, injury, or disease.?

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity have not been met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1101, 1110, 1131, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.?

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active military service from September 1982 to September 1993.

This case is being reviewed according to the appellate process set forth under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (hereinafter the "Appeals Modernization Act"). The Appeals Modernization Act became effective February 19, 2019.?

In January 2024 (radiculopathy) and January 2025 (adjustment disorder), the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) initially denied the claim. In January 2025 (radiculopathy) and February 2025 (adjustment disorder), the Veteran filed a request for a higher level review which was adjudicated in an April 2025 rating decision. In December 2025, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement and elected Direct Review by a Veterans Law Judge. Accordingly, the Board considers the matter per the Direct Review Docket, according to which the appellate review proceeds without additional time allocated for a Board hearing or forwarding further evidence.?

Service Connection

Generally, to establish service connection 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." Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(d).?

Certain diseases may be presumed to have been incurred in service when manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from active duty. 38?U.S.C. §?1112; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.307, 3.309. Service connection for a recognized chronic disease can also be established through continuity of symptomatology. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (2013); 38?C.F.R. §§?3.303(b), 3.309. For chronic diseases shown as such in service or within the applicable presumptive period, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date are service connected unless attributable to an intercurrent cause. 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b). For a chronic disease to be considered to have been "shown in service," there must be a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings. Id. When the condition noted in-service or within the presumptive period is not a chronic disease, a showing of continuity of symptomatology after discharge is required. Id.?

1. Entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity is denied.

After a review of the record, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection have not been met.

At the outset, the Board notes that a December 2023 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with radiculopathy of the left lower extremity. As such, the Board finds that the first element of service connection has been met.

Concerning the second element, a review of the service treatment records (STRs) shows that he had normal lower extremities
condition noted in-service or within the presumptive period is not a chronic disease, a showing of continuity of symptomatology after discharge is required. Id.?

1. Entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity is denied.

After a review of the record, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection have not been met.

Concerning the second element, a review of the service treatment records (STRs) shows that he had normal lower extremities with no impaired use of legs, or neuritis in the June 1982 enlistment examination, October 1986 examination, February 1992 examination, and August 1993 separation examination. See March 2019 STR - Medical. These findings are consistent with the Veteran's claim that his radiculopathy developed after he had his low back disability. See June 2023 VA 21-4138 Statement in Support of Claim. Specifically, in a December 2023 VA examination he stated that he had sciatic pain down his left lower extremity in 2000 after a workplace injury. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the second element of service connection has not been met.

Regarding the third element of service connection, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination a December 2023 wherein an examiner opined that the claimed condition is less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness as there is a lack of substantiating evidence supporting a nexus between his radiculopathy of the left lower extremity and his service. His STRs are silent for any complaints or diagnosis of a nerve condition. His file notes that his pain stems from sciatic and radiculopathy related to his low back disability which is not related to his motor vehicle accident or the knee. Therefore, without chronicity during service or after service, a post-service event, illness, or injury is considered to be a more likely etiology.

The examiner also opined that the claimed condition is at least as likely as not proximately due to his lumbar spine condition. Although these conditions are related the Veteran is not currently service connected for his low back condition. Therefore, there is no service connection.

The Board finds most probative in this matter the VA medical opinion associated with the file, which is against the claim, and identifies that the Veteran's radiculopathy of the left lower extremity is due to his low back disability. The examiner is a medical professional and is competent to offer an opinion in the matter. The opinion reflects familiarity with the record, and the rationale provided is based on medical principles. It is probative evidence in the matter, and in the absence of competent medical evidence to the contrary, is persuasive. Specifically, the VA examiner considered the Veteran's contentions and determined that his disability is less likely than not etiologically related to service. Moreover, this is consistent with the Veteran's claim that his radiculopathy manifested in 2000, about seven years after service.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's radiculopathy of the left lower extremity is not etiologically related to service. In sum, the criteria for service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity have not been met. The evidence does not show that the radiculopathy of the left lower extremity is directly related to his military service. Further, this is consistent with the Veteran's claim that his radiculopathy manifested after service due to a workplace injury. Accordingly, service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990).

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for adjustment disorder is remanded.

At the outset, the Board notes that in a June 2024 VA treatment record, he was noted to have a "personal history of other mental disorders." See October 2024 CAPRI. Although it is unclear what "other mental disorders" the Veteran has, in an October 2024 statement, the Veteran wrote that he has difficulties adjusting to civilian life. See October 2024 VA Form 21-10210 - Lay Witness Statement. He reported that he has difficulties sleeping and being around others. He gets easily angered. He claimed that he has difficulties with simple tasks.

As the records appear to show that the
AND

1. Entitlement to service connection for adjustment disorder is remanded.

As the records appear to show that the Veteran has a current diagnosis and as the Veteran claims that he has difficulties adjusting to civilian life, the Board finds that the AOJ committed a pre-decisional duty to assist error when a VA examination was not afforded to the Veteran. As there is sufficient evidence to find that the VA's duty to assist has been triggered the Board finds that a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Schedule a VA examination to evaluate the claim for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include adjustment disorder. The claims file must be made available to be reviewed by the examiner.

The examiner is asked to opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that his acquired psychiatric disability (to include adjustment disorder) is etiologically related to service.

A detailed rationale for the opinion must be provided. If the examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that he or she offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, together with a statement as to whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge.

Christopher Seppanen

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board P. Noh

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