PARALYSIS OF SCIATIC NERVE OR EXTERNAL POPLITEAL NERVE

Summary

The Veteran served from June 2012 to March 2015, receiving an Under Honorable Conditions discharge. The Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy and the remand of claims for cervical spine disability, right shoulder disability, bilateral hand disability, right hip limitation of extension, and right thigh impairment. The Board denied service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy, finding that the evidence did not establish the presence of the condition during the period on appeal or functional impairment due to pain. The Board noted that the Veteran's service treatment records and post-service medical records did not show complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of right lower extremity radiculopathy. VA examiners also indicated no radicular pain or symptoms of radiculopathy. The Board found the VA examiners' opinions more persuasive than the Veteran's assertion, as the Veteran is not considered competent to relate a neurological disorder to a service incident. The Board remanded the other claims due to pre-decisional duty to assist errors, citing the need for further examination and clarification regarding the nexus to service for the cervical spine, right shoulder, and bilateral hand conditions, and for a clearer assessment of the severity of the right hip and thigh impairments without the ameliorative effects of medication.

Rationale

Service treatment records negative for radiculopathy; Post-service medical records negative for radiculopathy; VA examiners found no radicular pain or symptoms; Veteran not competent to relate neurological disorder to service incident; Evidence weighs against diagnosis of radiculopathy related to service

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038202
Decision Date: 04/23/26	Archive Date: 04/23/26

DOCKET NO. 250401-536459
DATE: April 23, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy is denied.

REMANDED

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

Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand disability is remanded.

Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for right hip limitation of extension is remanded.

Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for a right thigh impairment is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record weighs persuasively against a finding that right lower extremity radiculopathy was diagnosed during or approximate to the pendency of the appeal.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria are not met to establish service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had confirmed service from June 2012 to March 2015, at which time he received an Under Honorable Conditions discharge.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from September 2024 and March 2025 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO); by law, the modernized review system, governed by the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In an April 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. The Veteran was advised in a December 2025 correspondence that he had one year from the date the AOJ mailed the rating decision on appeal, or 60 days from the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, whichever is later, to switch AMA appeal dockets. Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024). This period has since expired and the Board will proceed with adjudication.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) rating decision on appeal regarding the Veteran's increased rating claims and the March 2025 rating decisions on appeal regarding the Veteran's service connection claims. 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 service connection claim for right lower extremity radiculopathy, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. However, because the Board is remanding the service connection claims for a cervical spine disorder, a right shoulder disorder, and a bilateral hand disorder and the increased rating claims for right hip limitation of extension and a right thigh impairment, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). 

The Board notes that the AOJ requested the Veteran submit any relevant private treatment records or submit information with which VA can assist the Veteran in obtaining private treatment records. Required notice and information were provided in the claim form which the Veteran signed, certifying to the fact that such notice was received and further that they have included or identified relevant evidence. VA requested records for which the Veteran submitted a proper release and/or adequately identified. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a Veteran desires help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Thus, the Board finds that VA has satisfied the duty to assist. No further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA's duty to assist in development. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001); Quartuccio v. Princip
 which the Veteran submitted a proper release and/or adequately identified. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a Veteran desires help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Thus, the Board finds that VA has satisfied the duty to assist. No further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA's duty to assist in development. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002).

The standard set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(iii) only permits constructive receipt of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) records that not only existed prior to the issuance of the AOJ decision on appeal, but also for which the claimant furnished sufficient information to make the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) aware of the existence of those records. Thus, the Board's consideration of VHA records is limited to the same. Here, the Board finds that VA treatment records were obtained and reviewed consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(iii) and the AMA framework.

\

Service Connection

Service connection is warranted for a disability due to a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

To substantiate a claim of service connection there must be competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a claimed disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in active service; and (3) a causal relationship between the present claimed disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Certain chronic diseases may be presumed to be service connected if manifested as chronic in service or to a compensable degree within a specified period after active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a).

For chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), service connection may be established by showing continuity of symptoms. See Walker v. Shinseki, 718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy is denied.

In November 2024, the Veteran asserted that he injured the right side of his body during service.

The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not show any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of right lower extremity radiculopathy during his service.

The Veteran's post-service medical records do not show any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of right lower extremity radiculopathy.

In May 2024 and November 2024, the Veteran was afforded VA examinations regarding his service-connected thoracolumbar spine disability. The examiners indicated that the Veteran did not have radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy.

While the Veteran asserted that he had right lower extremity radiculopathy related to service, the Veteran is not considered competent (meaning medically qualified by training or experience) to relate a neurological disorder to any incident during his service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied "when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim...even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary's adjudication of the claim." McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); see also Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013).

Here, the evidence does not indicate the presence of right lower extremity radiculopathy during the period on appeal.
Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied "when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim...even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary's adjudication of the claim." McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); see also Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013).

Here, the evidence does not indicate the presence of right lower extremity radiculopathy during the period on appeal. Nor does the evidence establish functional impairment due to pain that would suggest a disability even in the absence of a diagnosis. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

After weighing all the evidence, the Board finds the greatest probative value in the VA examiners' findings that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of right lower extremity radiculopathy but also notes that the entirety of the medical evidence weighs against the conclusion that the Veteran was diagnosed with right lower extremity radiculopathy which is related to service. 

Accordingly, the evidence of record is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran has been diagnosed with right lower extremity radiculopathy, and the claim must be denied.

REASONS FOR REMAND

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

Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hand disability is remanded.

Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for right hip limitation of extension is remanded.

Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for a right thigh impairment is remanded.

The matters are REMANDED for the following actions:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE REGIONAL OFFICE (RO) ADJUDICATOR:

a. Regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for a cervical spine disability, in November 2024, he filed his service connection claim. He was afforded a VA examination in February 2025, and he reported that he injured his cervical spine during his service and continued to experience cervical spine symptoms since service. While the examiner provided a negative opinion, the examiner relied on the lack of objective medical evidence showing a chronic cervical spine disability. However, the Veteran's STRs show that his net was tender in October 2012. In addition, the claims file contained a November 2024 cervical spine x-ray that confirmed arthritis, which the examiner did not address. Finally, the examiner did not address a November 2024 treatment visit when the Veteran reported a cervical spine injury during service. Therefore, a remand is required to cure a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

b. Regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for a right shoulder disability, in November 2024, he filed his service connection claim. He was afforded a VA examination in February 2025, and he reported that he injured his right shoulder during his service and continued to experience right shoulder symptoms since service. While the examiner provided a negative opinion, the examiner relied on the lack of medical evidence of a right shoulder impingement syndrome. While the examiner addressed an August 2013 STR showing right shoulder symptoms, the examiner did not address the Veteran's continued reports of right shoulder pain in November 2014. Finally, the examiner did not address a November 2024 treatment visit when the Veteran reported a right shoulder injury during service. Therefore, a remand is required to cure a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

c. Regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for a bilateral hand disability, in January 2025, he filed his service connection claim. He asserted that he had a bilateral hand disability due to his work as a mechanic in the cold during his service. He was afforded a VA examination in March 2025, and he reported that he started to have hand pain while working as a mechanic during service and continued to experience bilateral hand symptoms since service. While the examiner provided a negative opinion, the examiner relied on the lack of medical evidence of a bilateral hand disability. While the examiner addressed a STR showing left hand symptoms beginning in September 2014, the examiner did not address the Veteran's continued reports of hand pain in October 2014 and November 2014. Therefore, a remand is required to cure a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

d. Regarding the Veteran's increased rating claims for right hip limitation of extension and a right thigh impairment, in June 2024, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The examiner indicated that the Veteran took over the counter medications; however, it is not clear whether the examiner discounted the ameliorative effects
 symptoms since service. While the examiner provided a negative opinion, the examiner relied on the lack of medical evidence of a bilateral hand disability. While the examiner addressed a STR showing left hand symptoms beginning in September 2014, the examiner did not address the Veteran's continued reports of hand pain in October 2014 and November 2014. Therefore, a remand is required to cure a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

d. Regarding the Veteran's increased rating claims for right hip limitation of extension and a right thigh impairment, in June 2024, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The examiner indicated that the Veteran took over the counter medications; however, it is not clear whether the examiner discounted the ameliorative effects of the Veteran's medications when evaluating the symptoms of his right hip limitation of extension and right thigh impairment. A remand is necessary to determine the severity of the Veteran's right hip limitation of extension and right thigh impairment while discounting the ameliorative effects of medications. Jones v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56 (2012) (holding that the ameliorative effects of medication may not be considered in assigning a disability rating where these effects are not explicitly contemplated by the rating criteria).

THE REMAND DIRECTIVES FOLLOW

1. Schedule an examination for the Veteran with a qualified clinician.

Following a review of the evidence of record, provide the following opinions:

Opine 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 spine disability, right shoulder disability, and/or bilateral hand disability had its onset in or is otherwise etiologically related to service. Why or why not?

The examiner must review the entirety of the claims file with specific consideration of the following:

"	The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) showing a tender cervical spine in October 2012, right shoulder pain in August 2013, hand pain in September 2014, hand pain in October 2014, right shoulder pain in November 2014, and hand pain in November 2014.

"	The Veteran's statement at a November 2024 treatment visit that he injured his cervical spine and right shoulder during active service.

"	The Veteran's statement at a February 2025 VA examination that he injured his cervical spine and right shoulder in service and continued to have symptoms through the present.

"	The Veteran's statement at a March 2025 VA examination that he started to have hand symptoms while working as a mechanic in service and continued to have symptoms through the present.

"	The findings and opinions of the February 2025 and March 2025 examiners regarding the Veteran's cervical spine disability, right shoulder disability, and bilateral hand disability.

2. Obtain an opinion regarding the severity of the Veteran's right hip limitation of extension and right thigh impairment without the ameliorative effects of medications.

The examiner should respond to each of the following:

Clearly indicate whether any medications (over the counter or prescription) the Veteran used affected the level of severity of his right hip limitation of extension and/or right thigh impairment as of the June 2024 examination.

 If any such medication was productive of ameliorative affects, clearly identify such effects and opine as to the severity of the right hip limitation of extension and right thigh impairment absent such medication as of the June 2024 examinations, with an indication of approximate ranges of motion (if warranted). 

The examiner must review the entire record in conjunction with rendering the requested opinions.? The examiner's attention is drawn, but not limited to, the following evidence:???

"	The June 2024 VA examination for the Veteran's right hip limitation of extension and right thigh impairment

All requested opinions must be supported with a rationale based on generally accepted medical principles and the examiner's medical training and expertise.

The examiner is informed by the Board that chronicity is not required to find a nexus to service or for service connection to be granted.

The examiner is informed that a positive opinion indicating a nexus to service does not require certainty. Rather, if the weight of the evidence is in approximate balance for and against a nexus to service, the examiner should make a determination favorable to the Veteran.

The Board notes that the claims folder must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner for all post-remand cases per AOJ policy. See VBA Manual M21-1, Part IV.i.2.A.8.b. Thus, the examiner must specifically note that the claims folder was received and reviewed in the body of the examination report. 

3. Thereafter, the AOJ must readjudicate the Veteran's appealed issues in light of the totality of evidence of record.  If any benefit sought is not granted to the fullest extent, the AOJ must provide the Veteran and his representative with a copy of the readjudication and afford them an appropriate period to respond.


 the examiner should make a determination favorable to the Veteran.

The Board notes that the claims folder must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner for all post-remand cases per AOJ policy. See VBA Manual M21-1, Part IV.i.2.A.8.b. Thus, the examiner must specifically note that the claims folder was received and reviewed in the body of the examination report. 

3. Thereafter, the AOJ must readjudicate the Veteran's appealed issues in light of the totality of evidence of record.  If any benefit sought is not granted to the fullest extent, the AOJ must provide the Veteran and his representative with a copy of the readjudication and afford them an appropriate period to respond.

 

 

Scott W. Dale

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. Berryman, 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.