SHOULDER IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Army from April 1962 to October 1962, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral shoulder disabilities. The veteran claimed that his shoulder conditions resulted from basic training, specifically handling heavy equipment and cannon shells, which caused strain. He reported experiencing pain in his left shoulder shortly after service and later in his right shoulder, receiving cortisone shots for both. The veteran stated he delayed filing for benefits due to confusion about National Guard eligibility. The Board found evidence of current moderate osteoarthritis in both shoulders. However, service treatment records were silent regarding any in-service shoulder complaints, injuries, or diagnoses. The separation examination in September 1962 reflected clinically normal upper extremities and the veteran reported no bone, joint, or deformity issues, nor painful shoulder pain. The Board found the veteran's lay statements made 60 years after service, contradicting contemporaneous service records, to be less probative. A private medical opinion from Dr. M.L. linked the bilateral shoulder tendonitis to service but lacked supporting rationale, rendering it not probative. The Board determined that the absence of evidence of an in-service occurrence meant the duty to provide a VA examination was not triggered. Lay statements regarding etiology were deemed outside the scope of common knowledge for non-medical professionals. The Board also found no evidence of chronicity or continuity of symptomatology, nor did the veteran have a diagnosis of osteoarthritis within one year of service to qualify for presumptive service connection. Consequently, service connection for both bilateral shoulder disabilities was denied.

Rationale

No in-service complaint, injury, or diagnosis; Contemporaneous service records indicated normal upper extremities; Private medical opinion lacked sufficient rationale

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040854
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250925-591823
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

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

Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is denied. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's right shoulder disability is less likely than not related to service.

2. The Veteran's left shoulder disability is less likely than not related to service. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for right shoulder disability are not met.  38 U.S.C. § 1131 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for left shoulder disability are not met.  38 U.S.C. § 1131 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1962 to October 1962, with subsequent time in the Army National Guard.  

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision on appeal was issued in December 2024 under The Veterans Appeals Improvement Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA) review system. 

In September 2025, the Veteran timely appealed this rating decision to the Board and selected the hearing lane for this claim.  Thus, the Board can only consider evidence submitted prior to the notification letter of the December 2024 AMA rating decision and evidence provided within 90 days of the Veteran's Board hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

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

1. - 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral shoulder disabilities is denied 

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a).  Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a link between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.  Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013).  Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

The Board notes that the Veteran contends that his left and right shoulder disabilities are the result of his basic training as a truck driver handling a large vehicle, the 105mm Howitzer cannon shells, which put a strain on his shoulders.  He stated that shortly after his release from duty, he developed a short pain in his left shoulder and was treated by his family doctor who gave him cortisone shots.  When he developed the same pain in his right shoulder, he received cortisone shots.  The Veteran contends that he believed that he was not entitled to benefits because he served in the National Guard, which is the reason his claim was filed so many years after his separation  See January 2026 Correspondence. 

With respect to the first element of service connection, the Board notes that during the period in which the evidentiary window was open, the Veteran submitted VA radiology reports, which reflect moderate osteoarthritis of the left and right shoulders.  See October 2025 VA Radiology reports from Miami Healthcare Systems.  Thus, the first element of service connection is met. 

With respect to the second element of service connection, evidence of an in-service event or injury, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any in-service complaint, injury, or diagnosis related to the Veteran's shoulders.

In a September 1962 Report of Medical Examination, for separation from active duty, the clinical examination reflected that the Veteran's upper extremities were clinically normal.  In the September 1962 Report of Medical History, the Veteran reported "No" to any bone, joint, or other deformity.  The Veteran also reported "No" to any painful or trick shoulder pain.  Id.  Given such, the Board finds that the second element of service connection is not met.  

The Board has considered whether the Veteran's lay statements that during service he felt shoulder pain due to heavy lifting and driving heavy trucks, are
 Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any in-service complaint, injury, or diagnosis related to the Veteran's shoulders.

In a September 1962 Report of Medical Examination, for separation from active duty, the clinical examination reflected that the Veteran's upper extremities were clinically normal.  In the September 1962 Report of Medical History, the Veteran reported "No" to any bone, joint, or other deformity.  The Veteran also reported "No" to any painful or trick shoulder pain.  Id.  Given such, the Board finds that the second element of service connection is not met.  

The Board has considered whether the Veteran's lay statements that during service he felt shoulder pain due to heavy lifting and driving heavy trucks, are sufficient to establish competent evidence of an in-service incurrence or event.  Notably, this statement was provided in 2024, approximately 60 years after his separation from active service.  Significantly, during his separation from active service, the Veteran stated "No" to any painful or trick shoulder pain.  In weighing the evidence, the Board finds the Veteran's STRs, which are contemporaneous to his active service, are more probative than assertions he made many years after service for compensation purposes.  See Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet 59 (1994); Cartwright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25-26 (1991) (a pecuniary interest may affect the credibility of a claimant's lay testimony).  Thus, the Board finds there is insufficient evidence to reflect an in-service occurrence or event related to the Veteran's bilateral shoulder disabilities.  

With respect to the third element of service connection, a nexus between the Veteran's current bilateral shoulder disabilities and his service, the Board notes that the Veteran submitted a private medical opinion from Dr. M.L.  In a September 2025 private nexus statement, Dr. M.L. stated that the Veteran's bilateral shoulder tendonitis is most likely caused by or the result of "service related."  In the rationale section, Dr. M.L. lists the Veteran's disabilities but does not provide any supporting rationale as to the basis of the opinion.  In providing for a nexus opinion, the examiner provided a single conclusory sentence, without a rationale as to the basis of that opinion.  As any opinion, to be adequate, it "must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions."  See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). See Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998).  The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("the Court") has further recognized that a mere statement of opinion, without more, does not provide an opportunity to explore the basis of the opinion.  See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990).  See Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2012) (medical opinions are adequate when they sufficiently inform the Board of a medical expert's judgment on a medical question and the essential rationale for that opinion).  Given such, the Board finds that the September 2025 private medical opinion by Dr. M.L, without a sufficient rationale, is not probative.  Given such, the third element of service connection is not met. 

In reaching this conclusion, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination for his bilateral shoulders.  The duty to assist includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when necessary to make a decision on a claim.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4).  

A medical examination is necessary when there is (1) "competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability," (2) evidence establishing an in-service "event, injury, or disease," and (3) an "indication" that the disability or symptoms may be associated with service, but (4) insufficient medical evidence of record for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.  McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d)(2).  Here, the Board finds, as noted above, that while the first element of McLendon is satisfied, the second element of McLendon, which requires evidence of an in-service occurrence is not.  Consequently, the Board finds that given the absence of an in-service occurrence or event, the "low" threshold for purposes of triggering VA's duty to provide an examination is not met.  McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 
 but (4) insufficient medical evidence of record for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.  McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d)(2).  Here, the Board finds, as noted above, that while the first element of McLendon is satisfied, the second element of McLendon, which requires evidence of an in-service occurrence is not.  Consequently, the Board finds that given the absence of an in-service occurrence or event, the "low" threshold for purposes of triggering VA's duty to provide an examination is not met.  McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 81. 

The Board has also considered the Veteran's lay statements in determination whether service connection is warranted.  However, although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, namely, the etiology of his claimed shoulder conditions, the issues of etiology and causation of such an ailment, is a determination outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person.  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (2007) (lay persons not competent to diagnose cancer).  Matters of diagnosis and etiology are generally within the province of trained medical professionals.  See Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 134 (1994).  Therefore, his lay statements have been reviewed and considered.  However, the Veteran lacks the medical training and expertise to provide a complex medical opinion as to the etiology of his shoulder disabilities. Id.

Also, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran contends that his shoulder pain has continued since service.  However, the evidence does not establish service connection by chronicity.  In order to establish service connection by chronicity, the claimant must demonstrate (1) the existence of a chronic disease in service and (2) present manifestations of the same disease.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b).  Here, there is no evidence of shoulder disabilities during service.  Thus, there is no evidence to establish the existence of a chronic disease during service.  Thus, without evidence of a chronic disease during service, service connection by chronicity cannot be established.

Furthermore, the evidence does not establish service connection by continuity of symptomology.  Service connection may also be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b), where a condition in service is noted but is not, in fact, chronic, or where a diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned.  Here, shoulder conditions were not noted in service.  

Lastly, although arthritis is one of the listed chronic diseases, the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the left and right shoulders within one year of his separation of service.  Thus, he cannot establish service connection on a presumptive basis for a chronic disease.  As here the Veteran was diagnosis first diagnosed moderate osteoarthritis of the bilateral shoulders in October 2025, and thus it cannot be established that arthritis was shown to be manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year following a Veteran's separation from active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

As the persuasive evidence weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable, and his claim must be denied.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102."

 

 

YVETTE R. WHITE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Abdelbary, 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.