DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

Summary

The Veteran, an Air Force Veteran who served from April 1966 to April 1970 and March 1971 to May 1990, appeals the denial of service connection for a low back disability. The Veteran claims the condition resulted from active duty injuries and pain incurred as an aircraft mechanic, citing duties involving awkward positions, heavy lifting, and a specific impact injury from a fuel container. The Board found that the Veteran's service treatment records reflected a low back injury during service, and the September 2025 rating decision favorably found current diagnoses of lumbar degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease. While a September 2025 VA examination opinion was deemed inadequate for failing to consider the Veteran's lay statements and prior claims, a private medical opinion from the Veteran's treating provider, Dr. M.T.S., was submitted. Although this opinion had lessened probative value due to an incomplete rationale, it affirmatively associated the claimed condition with service. The Board also found probative evidence of continuity of symptomatology, noting the Veteran's consistent reports of low back pain since service, even with gaps in treatment records. Given the approximate balance of evidence regarding the origin and continuity of the low back disability, service connection was granted.

Rationale

Service treatment records reflect low back injury during service.; Veteran's treating provider opined condition related to military duties.; Proved continuity of symptomatology since service.; Evidence in approximate balance regarding origin and continuity.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040551
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250929-592401
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine (low back disability) is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has experienced low back injury and pain related to lumbar arthritis since separation from service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a low back disability are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from April 1966 to April 1970, and March 1971 to May 1990.  

In the September 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket.  A Board hearing was held on January 16, 2026.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).  If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 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, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.  

This appeal has been advanced on the docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c).

The Veteran contends that he has a low back disability due to active service, including as due to back injuries and pain incurred while performing his duties as an aircraft mechanic.  See February 1996 VA spine examination; August 2025 VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim; January 2026 hearing transcript.  

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  Generally, service connection requires (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  

Certain chronic diseases, including arthritis, are presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The September 2025 rating decision on appeal favorably found current diagnoses for lumbar degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease, and service treatment records (STRs) reflecting a lumbar puncture wound representing a low back injury during service.  These favorable findings are binding on the Board.

The remaining issue is therefore whether there is a medical nexus between the claimed condition and active service.  Shortly after service, he
1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The September 2025 rating decision on appeal favorably found current diagnoses for lumbar degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease, and service treatment records (STRs) reflecting a lumbar puncture wound representing a low back injury during service.  These favorable findings are binding on the Board.

The remaining issue is therefore whether there is a medical nexus between the claimed condition and active service.  Shortly after service, he filed a prior claim for this disability in November 1992, two years after separating active duty.  At a February 1996 VA spine examination, he reported injuring his back in either 1972 or 1973 when he attempted to catch a tank that was supposed to be empty, but turned out to be full of fuel.  He reported being driven into a bent-over position with immediate, severe pain in his hands and low back, and continuing, episodic pain since.  His symptoms were triggered weekly by prolonged sitting or walking, lasting two to three days at a time.  The Veteran is competent to report his symptom onset, including where supporting a later medical diagnosis, and continuity of any current symptomatology.  Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  

There is a significant break in medical treatment records between the 1990s and early 2020s, when the Veteran initiated new service connection claims.  Although the Veteran went through several VA examinations during that period, the claims file does not show any VA or private provider treatment records added during that period.  The resulting claims file has few, if any, medical records related to joint pain, back pain, or other musculoskeletal complaints for approximately 25 years.  

In August 2025, the Veteran submitted private provider notes reflecting grossly similar reports to those made in 1996, stating his low back pain began with an injury on active duty and continued since.  Treating provider Dr. M.T.S. identified "repeated trauma to the lower back due to lifting" in her notes.  See March 2025 private provider records.  At a September 2025 VA spine examination, the Veteran endorsed back pain beginning on active duty while climbing, bending, and working in awkward positions performing aircraft maintenance.  He reported an impact injury from a hanging aircraft door during one such day, causing intense low back pain and requiring treatment for an open wound.  He attested to low back pain continuing since.  

The associated September 2025 VA medical opinion stated that, "without chronicity during service or after service," the claimed condition was less likely than not due to service.  The VA examiner cited the available medical record, including STRs and limited private provider notes filed in or around 2025, finding a general lack of low back pain complaints.  The VA examiner did not mention the fact that there was limited medical record available for review.  The VA examiner also did not cite or consider the Veteran's prior claim for service connection or his lay statements from either the February 1996 or March 2025 VA spine examinations.  This medical opinion is accordingly inadequate for rating purposes.  See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249 (2020) (explaining that a VA examination is inadequate if the examiner does not consider lay evidence); Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007) (similarly holding that, when the Veteran has provided lay testimony of an in-service injury, an examiner cannot ignore that lay evidence and base his or her opinion on a lack of corroborating medical records).

At hearing, the Veteran described his duties as an aircraft mechanic, including working in twisted positions in confined spaces, often crawling and/or climbing to reach various parts of aircraft, and regularly lifting heavy equipment and materials, including fuel tanks and tires.  He also identified and discussed the same acute injury involving a fuel container that was first reported in the February 1996 VA examination discussed previously.  

After his hearing and within the acceptable period to submit evidence, the Veteran submitted a statement from Dr. M.T.S., his treating provider.  Dr. M.T.S. cited the Veteran's military duties, including working in tight space and moving heavy equipment, as the cause of his degenerative disc disease and chronic low back pain with bilateral sciatica.  See February 2026 medical record.  Notably however, Dr. M.T
 positions in confined spaces, often crawling and/or climbing to reach various parts of aircraft, and regularly lifting heavy equipment and materials, including fuel tanks and tires.  He also identified and discussed the same acute injury involving a fuel container that was first reported in the February 1996 VA examination discussed previously.  

After his hearing and within the acceptable period to submit evidence, the Veteran submitted a statement from Dr. M.T.S., his treating provider.  Dr. M.T.S. cited the Veteran's military duties, including working in tight space and moving heavy equipment, as the cause of his degenerative disc disease and chronic low back pain with bilateral sciatica.  See February 2026 medical record.  Notably however, Dr. M.T.S. did not present a complete medical rationale or cite the Veteran's disability history in her statement, indicating instead that the Board is welcome to solicit the medical records and treatment notes that are the basis of her opinion.  

The probative value of a medical opinion is based on the medical expert's personal examination of the patient, the physician's knowledge and skill in analyzing the data, and the medical conclusion the physician reaches.  Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993).  Whether a clinician provides a basis for his or her medical opinion goes to the weight or credibility of the evidence in the adjudication of the merits.  Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998).  

Dr. M.T.S. had been the Veteran's treating provider for at least 3 years prior to her opinion, and the record reflects treatment notes from her office establishing that she was aware of the Veteran's medical history and actively treated the claimed condition.  The Board accordingly finds this opinion of lessened probative value, as the authoring physician knew the Veteran's medical details well, but failed to provide a complete rationale for her findings.  

The record accordingly reflects competent, consistent statements that the Veteran's low back pain began during active duty service and has continued until his arthritis diagnosis.  He has not stated, and the record does not reflect, any break in symptoms or intercurrent cause for the claimed condition.  The Board is cognizant that it is continuous symptoms, not instead continuous treatment for them ("chronicity of care"), is the essence of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).  Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 257 (2020); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 496 (1997).  Further, the only probative medical opinion of record, even though it is of lessened probative value, affirmatively associates the claimed condition with service.

The Board accordingly finds probative evidence of continuity of symptomatology.  Walker, 701 F.3d 1331; see also Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996) (An "absolutely accurate" determination of etiology is not a condition precedent to granting service connection, nor is "definite" or "obvious" etiology).  The evidence is at least in approximate balance regarding whether the low back disability originated during a period of active duty service and continued after service.  As such, service connection for a low back disability is hereby GRANTED.  Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).    

 

J.P. Norman

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	W. Stearns, 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.