BVA Case 20-6699: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · April 12,2022 · SCHOELEN

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded / Affirmed
Decision Date
April 12,2022
Judge
SCHOELEN
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackHipRadiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService Connection

Why It Was Decided This Way

She opined that the appellant's left foot and back problems were more likely than not related to his military service.

At that time,the Board noted that the Veteran has not claimed a low back injury during service and [STRs]do not reflect a back injury; rather,he claims that a left foot injury has caused or aggravated his back problems.

Based on the normal x-rays,documented improvement in service,an absence of records or evidence indicating chronic foot pain or problems after 1986 until 2010,and a normal November 2010 left foot examination,the February 2016 examiner opined that the left foot condition was less likely than not related to service.

The examiner opined that both the left foot and lumbar spine disabilities were less likely than not related to service because the appellant had [n]o diagnosable left foot disability as fracture resolved as noted on [the ]2010normal x-ray.

In its May 28,2020,decision,the Board denied service connection for both disabilities for lack of nexus.

The Board found that, [i]nstead,the first evidence of fracture or other objective pathology was shown in the MRI in 2011,which showed evidence of sesamoid or hairline fractures in both feet.

The Board added that all the VA examiners of record have drawn similar conclusions, based on the diagnostic images,that the Veteran's left foot condition in service resolved and was not related to the disabilities shown some 25 years later on MRI.

Further,because of the x-ray results,the Board concluded that the appellant's reports of foot pain over the years were not related to his current disabilities or to his foot pain in service.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiAndrews v. McAries v. PeakeArneson v. ShinsekiBuchanan v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCray v. WilkieDaves v. NicholsonFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGuerrieri v. BrownHyder v. DerwinskiKahana v. ShinsekiMartin v. Occupational Safety Health Review CommOwens v. BrownRodriguez v. PeakeSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Kutscherousky v. WestSee Monzingo v. ShinsekiStefl v. NicholsonTucker v. WestWagner v. United States

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus

Find Similar Precedent for Your Claim

VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.

Run my claim through VetAid →