DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

Summary

The Veteran, an Army veteran who served from January 1970 to August 1971, appeals the denial of service connection for a lumbar spine disability. The Veteran contends the disability originated in service due to heavy lifting and physical activities related to his job as a truck driver. While the service treatment records did not document an in-service back injury, the Veteran credibly reported experiencing back pain in service and informed his sergeant, though no follow-up occurred. The pain has persisted since service. The Board found the Veteran competent to report his experiences and his lay reports of ongoing pain to be highly probative, noting no reason to doubt his veracity. The Board also considered a February 2026 medical opinion from the Veteran's treating physician at the Fort Worth VA Clinic, which linked the current lumbar spine disability to active duty service, establishing a nexus based on continuity of symptoms. This opinion was found more persuasive than the August 2022 VA examination, which cited a lack of treatment records and failed to address the Veteran's lay reports. The Board concluded the evidence supporting a nexus was in equipoise with evidence against it. Consequently, service connection for the lumbar spine disability is granted.

Rationale

Veteran credibly reported in-service back pain; Continuity of symptoms established; Treating physician opinion linked current disability to service

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040144
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 221111-297474
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

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

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from January 1970 to August 1971.

In October 2022, the Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision which addressed the above-noted claim.  Thereafter, in November 2022 the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD), wherein he elected to appeal the claim in the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) System.  He selected the hearing lane option; therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time the RO issued the October 2022 rating decision, as well as evidence submitted within 90 days of the Veteran's hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302.

In January 2026, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a virtual hearing.  A transcript of that proceeding is of record.

Finally, the Board notes this case has been advanced on the docket, due to the Veteran's age.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's lumbar spine disability is etiologically related to his active service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

Legal Criteria

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

Factual Background and Analysis

The Veteran seeks service connection for a lumbar spine disability, which he contends originated in service.

The medical evidence confirms the Veteran currently has degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with spondylosis, stenosis, osteophytes, and associated pain.  Though the Board acknowledges the Veteran's service treatment records do not show he sustained in-service injuries to his back, the Veteran has competently reported experiencing back pain in service following heavy lifting and other physical activities associated with his military occupation as a truck driver.  

During the January 2026 Board hearing, the Veteran stated he informed his sergeant of his back pain, but did not receive any followup from him.  The Veteran also indicated his pain has persisted since that time.  As such, the central issue that must be resolved at this time is whether the Veteran's current disability originated during service or is otherwise related to service.

In August 2022, the RO obtained a VA back examination.  Following that examination, the examiner concluded the Veteran's current lumbar spine disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by his military service.  Here, the examiner cited to a lack of evidence of treatment for the Veteran's back both in, and for many years following service; however, the examiner wholly failed to acknowledge or discuss the Veteran's lay reports in her medical opinion.  Examiners simply are not free to ignore a veteran's statements related to lay observable symptoms.  See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007).

By contrast, the Veteran recently provided a medical opinion from his treating physician at the Fort Worth VA Clinic in February 2026.  In her opinion, the physician acknowledged the Veteran's reports of an in-service injury, and concluded the Veteran's current lumbar spine disability was as likely as not caused by his active duty service.  Here, the examiner noted the Veteran's reports of ongoing pain since his time in service, and established a nexus based on the Veteran's continuity of symptoms.  Additionally, the examiner stated she considered the Veteran's medical history and could not account for any other post-service trauma that might more likely account for the Veteran's condition.  

In this case, the Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence.  Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006).  The evaluation of evidence generally involves a 3-step inquiry.  First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a "competent"
 not caused by his active duty service.  Here, the examiner noted the Veteran's reports of ongoing pain since his time in service, and established a nexus based on the Veteran's continuity of symptoms.  Additionally, the examiner stated she considered the Veteran's medical history and could not account for any other post-service trauma that might more likely account for the Veteran's condition.  

In this case, the Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence.  Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006).  The evaluation of evidence generally involves a 3-step inquiry.  First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a "competent" source.  The Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (Observing that once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible).  The third step of this inquiry requires the Board to weigh the probative value of the proffered evidence in light of the entirety of the record.  

The Board also notes that under certain circumstances, lay evidence may be sufficient to establish a nexus.  See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994).  Lay evidence has been found to be competent with regard to a disease that has "unique and readily identifiable features" that are "capable of lay observation."  See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308-09 (2007); see also Petitti v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 415, 427-28 (2015) (where the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims found objective evidence of pain need not come from a medical professional; a lay person may provide the requisite confirmation).

Here, the Veteran has reported that he experienced ongoing back pain following his in-service injuries.  The Board finds the Veteran competent to report his experiences.  It is generally within the competence of a lay person to identify and observe the effect of a disability under the ordinary conditions of daily life.  Many symptoms are readily observable by a lay person.  Accordingly, the lay evidence provided by the Veteran is unquestionably competent evidence.  Further, the Board finds the Veteran's own reports of ongoing pain to be highly probative, as the Veteran is indeed the only person truly capable of such observation.  Moreover, the Board finds no reason to doubt his veracity.  Additionally, the Veteran has provided a letter from his treating physician, which links his current back disability to his military service. 

(Continued on the next page)

?

In sum, the Board is satisfied that the evidence supporting a nexus between the Veteran's currently diagnosed back disability and his in-service injuries is at least in equipoise with the evidence against a nexus.  Therefore, the Veteran is entitled to service connection for his lumbar spine disability.

 

 

T. REYNOLDS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Fraser, Gordon

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.