LUMBOSACRAL STRAIN

Summary

The veteran, a Marine Corps veteran who served from January 1990 to December 1993, appeals the denial of service connection for a low back condition. The veteran reported that his low back pain began in service due to his duties as a Motor Vehicle Operator. Service treatment records from January 1990, January 1990, and September 1993 documented low back pain, which the Board found to be favorable and binding. The Board noted that two VA examinations in July 2022 and January 2024 were inadequate because they failed to adequately address the lay and medical evidence regarding the onset, cause, and nature of the condition, and lacked a full rationale. In contrast, a private medical specialist provided a positive nexus opinion in September 2023, citing medical literature that linked chronic lumbar strain to prior injuries and overuse, opining it was likely the Veteran's condition was due to service. The Veteran and a fellow service member provided credible lay statements corroborating the onset and continuity of symptoms since service. The Board found the private opinion and lay statements to be highly probative and weighing in favor of the claim. Consequently, the Board found the probative evidence weighed in favor of the claim and granted service connection for the low back condition.

Rationale

Service treatment records show in-service complaints of low back pain.; VA examinations were inadequate for failing to address pertinent evidence and provide adequate rationale.; Private medical specialist provided positive nexus opinion linking condition to service.; Veteran and service member lay statements are credible and probative.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040078
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 250908-585707
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for low back condition is granted. 

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's low back condition is related to service. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection of low back condition have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served in the Marine Corp from January 1990 to December 1993. 

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office, an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). 

In the September 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 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 claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Service Connection

Veterans are entitled to compensation from VA if they develop a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110. 

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 was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).  

To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

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. Only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application. Lynch v. McDonough,  21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

1. Entitlement to service connection for low back condition

The Veteran seeks service connection for his low back condition. Specifically, the Veteran reports that his low back pain onset in service due to his duties associated with his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a Motor Vehicle Operator. See DD-214, June 2022 Statement in Support of Claim. VA has conceded the Veteran has a diagnosis of lumbosacral strain and his service treatment records contain reports of low back pain on January 26, 1990, January 29, 1990, and on September 15, 1993. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

Negative nexus opinions were obtained in July 2022 and January 2024. However, the July 2022 and January 2024 VA examiners did not sufficiently address the pertinent lay and medical evidence of record regarding the onset, cause, and nature of the Veteran's appealed condition. Moreover, the July 2022 and January 2024 VA examiner did not support the findings with a full and adequate rationale. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 260 (2020); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311
, 1993. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

Negative nexus opinions were obtained in July 2022 and January 2024. However, the July 2022 and January 2024 VA examiners did not sufficiently address the pertinent lay and medical evidence of record regarding the onset, cause, and nature of the Veteran's appealed condition. Moreover, the July 2022 and January 2024 VA examiner did not support the findings with a full and adequate rationale. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 260 (2020); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).  The failure to properly address the onset, cause, and nature of the Veteran's low back condition, resulted in incomplete findings for the Board to properly adjudicate the claimed condition.  Consequently, the July 2022 and January 2024 findings are inadequate and afforded minimal probative value.

On the other hand, a positive nexus opinion was obtained in September 2023. The private medical specialist provided a positive nexus opinion relating the Veteran's low back condition to service.  In doing so, the provider cited medical literature indicating that a prior low back injury and/or lumbar spine area muscle overuse can cause a chronic lumbar strain with mechanical and functional instability, leading to re-injury, weakened muscles and joint capsules, and significant disability. The examiner opined it is likely the Veteran's low back condition is due to, related to, a progression of, and/or a continuation of his low back/lumbar spine area overuse injury that occurred during active-duty military service. See September 2023 Private Treatment Record.  The medical opinion is adequate and constitutes highly probative evidence weighing in favor of the claim.

Moreover, the Veteran and a service member maintain the Veteran's low back symptoms began during service and have continued since.  See June 2022 Statement in Support of Claim; January 2025 Buddy/Lay Statement. The Veteran and the service member, as lay persons, are "competent to report observable conditions."  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994).  The Veteran's and the service member's competent statements are credible and also probative evidence weighing in favor of the claim.

For the above reasons, the probative evidence weighs in favor of the claim Therefore, service connection for low back condition is warranted.  

 

SHAUN S. SPERANZA

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Bobb, Jessica R.

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.