SCARS OF THE LATERAL TORSO

SHAUN S. SPERANZA · 2026 · Case ID: A26039462

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from July 1986 to September 1989, appeals the denial of service connection for burn scars on his lateral torso and for radiculopathy conditions affecting his left lower extremity, left upper extremity, and right upper extremity. The Board denied the burn scar claim, finding the veteran's current scars did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating. The January 2024 VA examinations documented scars covering 72.9 square centimeters, significantly less than the 929 square centimeters required for a 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 7802. The Board found the veteran's assertions of greater scar coverage, pain, numbness, and disfigurement to be not credible, as they were contradicted by service treatment records and the VA examinations. The Board also denied service connection for the radiculopathy conditions. While the veteran claimed these were secondary to service-connected cervical and lumbar spine issues, those primary claims were previously denied and are not at issue here. The Board found the veteran's service treatment records negative for any radiculopathy symptoms, with the first complaints appearing many years after service. The VA examinations also found no in-service basis for the radiculopathy, and the Board found the veteran's reports of in-service injuries causing these conditions to be not credible. The Board concluded the evidence weighed persuasively against direct service connection for the radiculopathy conditions.

Rationale

Scars covered 72.9 sq cm, less than the 929 sq cm required for a 10% rating.; Scars were not painful, unstable, or disfiguring per VA examinations.; Veteran's assertions of greater scar coverage and pain were found not credible.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Diagnostic Code

7802

Docket No.

250513-545583

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039462
Decision Date: 04/28/26 Archive Date: 04/28/26

DOCKET NO. 250513-545583
DATE: April 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to a compensable rating for scars of the lateral torso secondary to burns in service is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a left lower extremity condition, is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a left upper extremity condition, is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a right upper extremity condition, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's burn scars cover less than 144 square centimeters, are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage, and are not painful or unstable.

2. Left lower extremity radiculopathy was not manifest during service and is not otherwise related to service.

3. Left lower extremity radiculopathy is not caused by or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury.

4. Left upper extremity radiculopathy was not manifest during service and is not otherwise related to service.

5. Left upper extremity radiculopathy is not caused by or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury.

6. Right upper extremity radiculopathy was not manifest during service and is not otherwise related to service.

7. Right upper extremity radiculopathy is not caused by or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for a compensable rating for scars of the lateral torso secondary to burns in service have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.31, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802.

2. Left lower extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a left lower extremity condition, was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and may not be presumed to have been incurred therein. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

3. Left lower extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a left lower extremity condition, is not proximately due to, the result of or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

4. Left upper extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a left upper extremity condition, was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and may not be presumed to have been incurred therein. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

5. Left upper extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a left upper extremity condition, is not proximately due to, the result of or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

6. Right upper extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a right upper extremity condition, was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and may not be presumed to have been incurred therein. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

7. Right upper extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a right upper extremity condition, is not proximately due to, the result of or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1986 to September 1989.

These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision. The Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) in May 2025 and elected the Direct Review docket.

The April 2025 rating decision on appeal is a Higher-Level Review decision. In December 2024, the Veteran filed a VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher-Level Review that sought review of a July 2024 rating decision that had continued the noncompensable rating for his service-connected burn scars, and had denied service connection for left lower, left upper, and right upper extremity conditions. In reviewing a Higher-Level Review decision, the Board's review is limited to the evidence of record at the time of the underlying rating decision for which the Veteran requested higher-level review. Here, the Board may only consider evidence of record when the July 9, 2024 rating decision was issued. The Board cannot consider any evidence received thereafter. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

Disability Ratings

Disability ratings are?determined?by applying the criteria?set forth in?the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), found in?38 C.F.R., Part 4. The ratings are intended to compensate impairment in earning capacity due to a service-connected disease or?injury. 38?U.S.C. § 1155;?38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The determination of whether an increased evaluation is?warranted?is based on review of the entire evidence of record and the application of all pertinent regulations. Schafrath v. Derwinski,?1?Vet. App.?589 (1991). Where there is question as to which of the two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture most nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.?38 C.F.R. § 4.7.?

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107;?38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v.?Derwinski,?1?Vet. App.?49, 53 (1990). If the evidence for and against a claim is an equipoise, the claim will be granted. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability is resolved in favor of the Veteran.?38 C.F.R. § 4.3;?Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).?

1. Scars of the lateral torso secondary to burns in service.

The Veteran seeks an increased rating for his service-connected burn scars, which are currently assigned a 0 percent noncompensable rating.

The rating for the Veteran's scars has been assigned under Diagnostic Code 7802, which provides a 10 percent rating for burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage when the area or areas measure 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802. In each instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31.

The Veteran was provided a VA scars examination in January 2024. The examiner noted 6 total burn scars. Five of the burn scars were located on the Veteran's left and right lateral torso, and one burn scar was located on the Veteran's right buttock. All 6 scars were noted as being stable and less than deep partial thickness, with no painful scarring or disfigurement noted. The total area of coverage for the scars was 72.9 square centimeters. The examiner noted that a nurse practitioner had to be brough into the examination to assist with identifying the Veteran's scars, which were described as very difficult to discern with the naked eye due to their faded appearance. Noticeable hypopigmented discoloration was noted on the Veteran's left lateral torso and identified as a scar, with several scars noted and recorded on the right lateral torso. No other scars could be counted or measured accurately, and there were no observable scars on the Veteran's back, legs, or arms. The examiner also noted that the scarring was not painful to the touch. The January 2024 examination does show a surgical scar on the Veteran's
area of coverage for the scars was 72.9 square centimeters. The examiner noted that a nurse practitioner had to be brough into the examination to assist with identifying the Veteran's scars, which were described as very difficult to discern with the naked eye due to their faded appearance. Noticeable hypopigmented discoloration was noted on the Veteran's left lateral torso and identified as a scar, with several scars noted and recorded on the right lateral torso. No other scars could be counted or measured accurately, and there were no observable scars on the Veteran's back, legs, or arms. The examiner also noted that the scarring was not painful to the touch. The January 2024 examination does show a surgical scar on the Veteran's low back. This scar is not service connected.

The Veteran was also provided a VA skin conditions examination in January 2024 to assess his scars. This examination showed minor scarring due to burns covered 5 to 20 percent of the Veteran's total body area, and no part of the exposed areas of the Veteran's body. No skin condition apart from the Veteran's in-service steam burns and residual scarring were noted in the examination, and the Veteran did not require any current treatments for a skin condition. The examiner noted the Veteran has very minor scarring due to burns sustained during service that were primarily first degree with some second degree burns. The examiner again noted that the scars were very difficult to see with the naked eye, with scarring found on the Veteran's left and right lateral torso. The examiner also found that the skin on the Veteran's arms, legs, back, and upper chest were intact with no scars.

The Board finds the January 2024 VA examinations are adequate and highly probative evidence weighing substantially against assigning a compensable rating for the Veteran's burn scars. A compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7802 requires scarring covering an area of 929 square centimeters. The January 2024 scar examination shows the Veteran's service-connected burn scars cover 72.9 square centimeters, substantially less than the area required for a 10 percent rating. As such, the probative evidence establishes entitlement to only a zero percent rating under Diagnostic Code 7802. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. As noted, a zero percent rating is assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met.

In the September 2023 application for service connection for burn scars, the Veteran reported the scars covered approximately 86 percent of his entire body and were painful, numb, and disfiguring. The Veteran also filed a Supplemental Claim in March 2024 and argued that the January 2024 VA examinations were inadequate in part because no scars under his clothing were examined. However, the Veteran's assertions are contradicted by the January 2024 examinations.

While the Veteran initially reported burn scars covering approximately 86 percent of his entire body, service treatment records establish the Veteran's in-service burns covered significantly less of his body. An October 1987 plastic surgery record shows 40 percent partial thickness burns. A November 1987 hospital discharge record shows 48 percent partial thickness steam burns. These records establish the Veteran's in-service burns covered between 40 and 48 percent of his body total, far lower than the area he alleged his scars now covered. In addition, the January 2024 VA examinations establish that the areas of the Veteran's body that are typically covered by clothing were examined. The only scars that were identified during the January 2024 scar examination were scars that would typically be under the Veteran's clothing. The examination shows 6 total burn scars, of which 5 were on the Veteran's torso and one was on the posterior trunk, noted as being n on the Veteran's right buttock. Notably, the January 2024 skin conditions examination shows that no scars on the exposed area of the Veteran's body, and that 5 to 20 percent of the total area of the Veteran's body was covered in minor scarring due to burns. Finally, the scars identified in the January 2024 VA examinations were not painful to the touch, were less than deep partial thickness, and were described as minor and difficult to discern with no evidence of any disfigurement. No other impairments, including numbness, were documented or reported by the Veteran during the VA examinations.

In weighing the credibility of evidence, the Board may properly consider factors such as inconsistent statements and consistency with other evidence of record. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Macarubbo v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 388 (1997). The service treatment records and the results of the January 2024 VA examination greatly contradict the Veteran's initial assertions made in support of the claim. The Veteran's burn and the resulting scars do not cover 86 percent of his body. The January 2024 examiner did examine the areas of the Veteran's body that were covered by clothing, and the only scars identified during the examination were on areas of the Veteran's body typically covered by clothing. The scars were not painful during the examination, with no disfigurement or other physical symptoms such as numbness found. The Board finds the Veteran's initial reports of greater scar coverage, inadequate VA examinations, and that his scars are painful, numb, and disfiguring, are not credible and, thus, not probative.

The Board considered whether other Diagnostic Codes are applicable. However, other provisions do not allow for a compensable rating for the Veteran's scars. Under Diagnostic Code 7801, a 10 percent rating is warranted for a scar on other than the head, face, or neck, that is deep (associated with underlying soft tissue damage) or that causes limited motion with area or areas exceeding 6 square inches (39 sq. cm.). Diagnostic Code 7801 is inapplicable, as the Veteran's scar has not been described as deep, nonlinear, or associated with underlying soft tissue damage. The scar is not noted to cause limited motion, and while his scars do cover an area exceeding 39 square centimeters, none of the other criteria required under Diagnostic Code 7801 are shown.

Under Diagnostic Code 7804, scars that are unstable or painful warrant at least a 10 percent rating, with 5 or more painful scars warranting a 30 percent rating. An unstable scar is one where, for any reason, there is frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar. Scars evaluated under Diagnostic Codes7802 may also receive an evaluation under Diagnostic Code 7804, when applicable. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7804. The VA examinations show the Veteran has 6 separate identified burn scars. Although Diagnostic Code 7804 could allow up to a 30 percent rating if these scars were painful or unstable, the Veteran's scars were not painful during the January 2024 VA examinations, and there was no indication the scars were unstable. While the Veteran indicated the scars were painful and numb in his initial application for service connection, the scars were fully examined during the VA examinations, which show the scars were not painful to the touch, were not otherwise unstable, and did not result in any other symptoms or impairment. Notably, the Veteran did not report pain or symptoms relating to the scars during the VA examinations. The Board has found the physical examination of the scars, and the examiner's documented findings, are far more credible and probative than the Veteran's contradictory reports.

Finally, under Diagnostic Code 7805, disabling effects not considered in a rating provided under the other scar Diagnostic Codes are to be rated under an appropriate diagnostic code. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7805. The most probative evidence here is the January 2024 VA examinations, which show no other disabling effect of the Veteran's scars.

In sum, the criteria for a compensable rating for the Veteran's burn scars are not met or more nearly approximated. In each instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. The Board finds the probative evidence weighs persuasively against the claim and is consistent with a noncompensable evaluation under Diagnostic Code 7802 for scars not of the head, face, or neck, that is not associated with underlying soft tissue damage. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application, and entitlement to a compensable rating for scars of the lateral torso secondary to burns in service is not warranted.

Service Connection

Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military,
percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. The Board finds the probative evidence weighs persuasively against the claim and is consistent with a noncompensable evaluation under Diagnostic Code 7802 for scars not of the head, face, or neck, that is not associated with underlying soft tissue damage. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application, and entitlement to a compensable rating for scars of the lateral torso secondary to burns in service is not warranted.

Service Connection

Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. To establish service connection a Veteran must generally 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any 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)

Secondary service connection is warranted for disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or?injury. 38?C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). Any increase in severity of a nonservice-connected disease or injury that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury, and not due to the natural progress of the nonservice-connected disease or injury will be service-connected.?38 C.F.R. § 3.310?(b).

Service connection may also be granted for certain chronic diseases, including organic diseases of the nervous system such as neuropathies and radiculopathies, if the disease becomes manifest during service or to a compensable degree within one year following separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107;?38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App.?at 53. If the evidence for and against a claim is an equipoise, the claim will be granted. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability is resolved in favor of the Veteran.?38 C.F.R. § 4.3;?Lynch, 21 F.4th 776.?

2. Left lower extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a left lower extremity condition.

3. Left upper extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a left upper extremity condition.

4. Right upper extremity radiculopathy, claimed as a right upper extremity condition.

The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral upper extremity and left lower extremity conditions. In the September 2023 application for service connection, the Veteran claimed bilateral upper extremity conditions were secondary to a cervical spine condition, and that a left lower extremity condition was secondary to a lumbar spine condition.

Private records show the Veteran has been diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy affecting both of his upper extremities, and that he also has lumbar radiculopathy affecting his lower extremities. The July 2024 and April 2025 rating decisions also include the favorable findings that the Veteran has left and right upper extremity radiculopathy disabilities caused by his cervical spine disabilities, and that he has left lower extremity sciatic nerve radiculopathy caused by his lumbar spine disabilities. The Veteran has current left upper extremity, right upper extremity, and left lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities.

The Veteran's service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatments, or diagnoses relating to his claimed upper and lower extremity radiculopathy conditions. The Veteran was treated for neck and back muscle strains in April 1989 with complaints of neck and back pain for one day. He reported that he did not know how he may have injured his neck or back, and no upper or lower extremity
Veteran has left and right upper extremity radiculopathy disabilities caused by his cervical spine disabilities, and that he has left lower extremity sciatic nerve radiculopathy caused by his lumbar spine disabilities. The Veteran has current left upper extremity, right upper extremity, and left lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities.

The Veteran's service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatments, or diagnoses relating to his claimed upper and lower extremity radiculopathy conditions. The Veteran was treated for neck and back muscle strains in April 1989 with complaints of neck and back pain for one day. He reported that he did not know how he may have injured his neck or back, and no upper or lower extremity numbness or tingling was noted. He was assessed with muscle strains at the time, with no radiculopathy or neurologic symptoms diagnosed or treated. The September 1989 separation examination shows a clinically normal evaluation of the Veteran's neck, spine, upper extremities, lower extremities, and neurologic system. The Veteran denied any relevant symptoms in the September 1989 separation report of medical history, including recurrent back pains, relevant musculoskeletal pains, neuritis, or paralysis. No upper or lower extremity radiculopathy symptoms were noted or reported during the Veteran's service or at separation.

Post-service treatment records are negative for any relevant symptoms or complaints for many years after the Veteran separated from active service. Private treatment records do show the Veteran had reported bilateral hand and arm numbness with cervical radiculopathy, and that he had lower extremity radiculopathy. A March 2013 cervical spine MRI shows a small disc herniation, and an April 2014 lumbar spine MRI notes bulging lumbar discs causing minimal impingement. October 2021 records show the Veteran underwent a lumbar hemilaminectomy and diskectomy in July 2014. He reported having lower extremity radicular pain prior to this surgery, and that the symptoms had resolved following the surgery until approximately one year prior. The Veteran also reported paresthesias in his hands and arms. December 2021 records show complaints of bilateral radicular arm pain with hand weakness and numbness, and lower extremity radicular pain. MRI results at the time also noted radicular arm pain, and the lumbar spine MRI showed disc extrusions with probable nerve compression in the Veteran's lumbar spine. A January 2022 record shows diagnoses for lumbar radiculopathy and sciatica, and a February 2022 record also shows the Veteran complained of numbness in his arms and legs with diagnoses for cervical radiculopathy and bilateral hand numbness.

The Veteran was provided a VA cervical spine conditions examination in January 2024, during which he reported injuring his neck during his service when a hot waterline exploded and he hit his neck after being thrown into the air. Regarding radiculopathies, he reported radiating pain into his left arm with intermittent numbness and tingling. The examiner noted mild left upper extremity paresthesias, dysesthesias, and numbness that were consistent with left upper extremity radiculopathy. The Veteran did not report any right upper extremity symptoms during the January 2024 examination, although private treatment records do document diagnoses for right upper extremity radiculopathy.

The Veteran was also provided a VA back conditions examination in January 2024. He again reported injuring his back after being thrown into the air during a hot waterline explosion. He reported that he had begun to consult with private providers for back pains in 2014, and that he had a slipped disc in 2015 with surgery in 2016. The Veteran also reported current low back pain that radiated into both legs. The examiner found mild left lower extremity pain, paresthesias, dysesthesias, and numbness of the left lower extremity, and diagnosed sciatic radiculopathy.

The January 2024 examiner provided medical opinions addressing the Veteran's claimed radiculopathies, and concluded it was less likely than not that a bilateral upper extremity condition or a left lower extremity condition were incurred in or caused by the Veteran's service. The examiner noted that the Veteran had experienced neck and back muscular strains during his service and had denied experiencing any recurrent pain in the separation examination, including recurrent back pain. The examiner found it was reasonable to conclude that the Veteran's neck and back strains were acute and had resolved during his service. The examiner also explained there were no diagnoses or treatment related to bilateral upper extremity or left lower extremity conditions during the Veteran's service, nor were there any conditions secondary to the cervical or lumbar spine in the service treatment records. The examiner also noted that the first mention of any numbness and radiculopathy symptoms was many years
a bilateral upper extremity condition or a left lower extremity condition were incurred in or caused by the Veteran's service. The examiner noted that the Veteran had experienced neck and back muscular strains during his service and had denied experiencing any recurrent pain in the separation examination, including recurrent back pain. The examiner found it was reasonable to conclude that the Veteran's neck and back strains were acute and had resolved during his service. The examiner also explained there were no diagnoses or treatment related to bilateral upper extremity or left lower extremity conditions during the Veteran's service, nor were there any conditions secondary to the cervical or lumbar spine in the service treatment records. The examiner also noted that the first mention of any numbness and radiculopathy symptoms was many years after the Veteran separated from service.

The Veteran claimed service connection for his upper and lower extremity radiculopathy conditions as secondary to cervical spine and lumbar spine conditions. The VA cervical spine examination showed that he has a cervical strain with left upper extremity radiculopathy symptoms, and private records include a December 2021 MRI showing severe left neural foraminal stenosis at the C6-7 vertebrae and a left-sided disc bulge with resulting bilateral upper extremity cervical radiculopathy and numbness related to these cervical spine disorders. The VA back examination also shows the Veteran has lumbar spine intervertebral disc syndrome with lower extremity sciatic nerve radiculopathy, and private records include MRI results showing bulging lumbar discs resulting in lower extremity sciatic nerve radiculopathy. Notably, the April 2025 rating decision on appeal includes the favorable findings that the evidence supports a nexus between the Veteran's cervical spine disabilities and his upper extremity radiculopathies, and the evidence supports a nexus between the Veteran's lumbar spine disabilities and his lower extremity radiculopathy. The evidence demonstrates the Veteran has upper and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities caused by his cervical and lumbar spine disabilities, and the Board is bound by the favorable findings made in the April 2025 rating decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).

However, service connection has not been granted for any cervical or lumbar spine disability. The Veteran had also claimed service connection for his cervical and lumbar spine disabilities in the initial September 2023 application for benefits. These claims were denied in a February 2024 rating decision, and the Veteran filed a Request for Higher-Level Review in March 2024. This was denied in a July 2024 rating decision, which the Veteran separately appealed to the Board with a VA Form 10182 filed in December 2024. The Board issued a decision in July 2025 that denied service connection for the Veteran's claimed cervical and lumbar spine disabilities. No further action has been taken regarding the claims for service connection for cervical and lumbar spine disabilities, which are not at issue in this appeal. To the extent the Veteran has claimed his bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy and his left lower extremity radiculopathy are secondary to service-connected cervical and lumbar disabilities, secondary service connection for the Veteran's bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy and his left lower extremity radiculopathy cannot be granted under 38?C.F.R. § 3.310. The causal cervical and lumbar spine disabilities are not service-connected.

The evidence also weighs persuasively against granting service connection for the Veteran's bilateral upper and left lower extremity radiculopathies as incurred in or otherwise directly related to his service. The service treatment records are entirely negative for relevant symptoms, treatments, or diagnoses pertaining to the Veteran's upper and lower extremity radiculopathy. Although he was treated for neck and back strains during service, no upper and lower extremity symptoms were identified at the time. The separation examination and medical history are negative, and the first mention of any upper and lower extremity symptoms in the private treatment records was many years after the Veteran separated from service.

In adjudicating a claim, the Board must assess the competence and credibility of lay statements. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368-69 (2005). The Veteran has suggested that his upper and lower extremity radiculopathies are related to the in-service pipe explosion that caused his burns, and that he injured his neck and back during the explosion. VA has conceded the Veteran did have neck and back muscle strains during service, and the Veteran is competent to report his medical history. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, competence and credibility are different matters.

Again, the
451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368-69 (2005). The Veteran has suggested that his upper and lower extremity radiculopathies are related to the in-service pipe explosion that caused his burns, and that he injured his neck and back during the explosion. VA has conceded the Veteran did have neck and back muscle strains during service, and the Veteran is competent to report his medical history. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, competence and credibility are different matters.

Again, the claims for service connection for cervical spine and lumbar spine disabilities are not at issue in this appeal, and were separately denied by the Board in a July 2025 decision. However, to the extent the Veteran argues his upper and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities were the result of the pipe explosion that caused his burns, his assertions are inconsistent with the contemporary medical treatment records and his own statements made while treated for neck and back strains during service. The service treatment records show the Veteran was not treated for any neck, back, or radiculopathy symptoms when the hot water line exploded in October 1987. He does not appear to have injured his neck or back during the pipe explosion, and no radiculopathy symptoms were identified in relation to this incident. The only neck and back injuries documented in the service treatment records were the neck and back muscle strains treated in April 1989, well after the October 1987 explosion. When treated in April 1989, the Veteran reported neck and back pains for one day and that he did not know how he may have injured either his neck or back. More importantly, there were no numbness, tingling, or other radiculopathy symptoms identified or treated in April 1989. The Veteran explicitly denied any upper extremity numbness and tingling when treated in April 1989, with no evidence of lower extremity symptoms at the time. The September 1989 examination and report of medical history completed for the Veteran's separation are similarly negative for any relevant neck, back, or neurologic complaints.

Lay evidence cannot categorically be found not credible merely because the lay evidence is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1336-37. Nonetheless, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence showing the Veteran was treated for upper and lower extremity radiculopathy symptoms during service can be considered and weighed against the lay statements. Id. Moreover, the medical record here is not entirely silent. The April 1989 treatment records show the Veteran had denied any upper extremity symptoms. The separation examination shows a clinically normal evaluation of all relevant musculoskeletal and neurologic symptoms, and the Veteran denied any relevant symptoms in the separation report of medical history. In addition, the first complaints and treatments for any upper or lower extremity radiculopathy symptoms was many years after the Veteran separated from service. To the extent the Veteran argues that his radiculopathy symptoms were present during service and caused by in-service neck and back injuries, his reports are contradicted by the other evidence of record, and the Board finds his assertions are not credible.

Next, the Board will address the medical evidence and opinions. For medical evidence to be given weight, it must be (1) based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the result of principles and methods reliably applied to the facts. Nieves-Rodriquez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302 (2008). The probative value of a medical opinion primarily comes from its reasoning; threshold considerations are whether a person opining is suitably qualified and sufficiently informed. Id. at 304.

An opinion is adequate when it is based upon consideration of the Veteran's prior medical history and examinations and describes the disability in sufficient detail so that the Board's evaluation will be a fully informed one. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 104 (2008). In addition, the opinion must support its conclusions with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). An adequate medical report must rest on correct facts and reasoned medical judgment so as to inform the Board on a medical question and facilitate the Board's consideration and weighing of the report against any contrary reports. Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286, 293 (2012).

The Board finds the January 2024 VA examinations and medical opinions adequate. The opinion is based
. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 104 (2008). In addition, the opinion must support its conclusions with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). An adequate medical report must rest on correct facts and reasoned medical judgment so as to inform the Board on a medical question and facilitate the Board's consideration and weighing of the report against any contrary reports. Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286, 293 (2012).

The Board finds the January 2024 VA examinations and medical opinions adequate. The opinion is based primarily on the Veteran's documented medical history. The service treatment records are negative for any relevant radiculopathy symptoms and show no such symptoms were present at separation. Although the Veteran was treated for neck and back muscle strains during service, no radiculopathy symptoms were present. As explained above, the Board has found the Veteran's subsequent reports of in-service injuries causing radiculopathy symptoms are not credible. Furthermore, the post-service treatment records do not show any complaints or treatments for radiculopathy symptoms until many years after he separated from service, which is consistent with the examiner's findings. There are no other medical opinions available, and the private and VA treatment records do not attribute any of the Veteran's radiculopathy symptoms to his service, to include his in-service neck and back muscle strains. As such, the Board finds the January 2024 VA opinion to be highly probative evidence weighing substantially against the claim.

Finally, radiculopathy is considered a chronic disease as an organic disease of the nervous system. The evidence weighs persuasively against a finding the Veteran's claimed radiculopathy disabilities manifested in service or within one year of separation. Although the Veteran's service treatment records do show he was treated for cervical and lumbar muscle strains during service, the records do not show the Veteran had any relevant symptoms radiculopathy symptoms or complaints during his service. In addition, the post-service treatment records document complaints of radiculopathy symptoms many years after he separated from active service in September 1989. There are no medical records or lay statements involving radiculopathy symptoms in the record until the cervical spine MRI showed disc herniations in 2013 and the lumbar spine MRI showed impingement in 2014, both over 20 years after the Veteran separated from service. He has not generally reported in-service radiculopathy symptoms or that such symptoms began within one year of his separation from service. As explained above, he primarily claimed upper and lower extremity radiculopathies were secondary to cervical and lumbar spine disabilities for which service connection has not been granted. Consequently, the probative evidence weighs persuasively against finding the Veteran had characteristic manifestations sufficient to identify radiculopathy as an organic disease of the nervous system during service or within one year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b).

In sum, the probative evidence weighs persuasively against the claims for service connection for bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy conditions and a left lower extremity radiculopathy condition. The probative evidence demonstrates the Veteran does have the claimed radiculopathy disabilities, but that these disabilities are proximately due to and the result of non-service-connected cervical and lumbar spine disorders. Secondary service connection under 38?C.F.R. § 3.310 is therefore not warranted. The weighs against finding the Veteran had radiculopathy symptoms during service or within one year of his separation from service, and there is otherwise little probative evidence that his current radiculopathy is directly related to service. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is therefore not for application, and service connection for bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy conditions and a left lower extremity radiculopathy condition is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Lynch, 21 F.4th 776.

SHAUN S. SPERANZA

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Morse, Stenson

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