BVA Case 20-7109: Back

In its June 2020 decision,the Board determined that the appellant's cervical spine condition is not causally or etiologically due to service,nor is it proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disability.

Continuity of Symptomatology The appellant contends that the Board erred when it failed to follow the law in addressing continuity of symptomatology.

2013), the Federal Circuit made it clear that lay evidence of continuity of symptomatology can establish nexus,and a medical nexus opinion is not required to establish service connection under section 3.

The appellant maintains that the Board erred when it found that any relationship between the current cervical spine condition and symptoms of neck pain over the years must be established by medical evidence.

According to the appellant, [t]he Board's failure to consider the theory of continuity of symptomatology because of the fact that the cervical spine condition is a complex medical issue[,]was in error,as medical expertise is not required to prove nexus under 38 C.

258, 263-64 (2015),the Secretary contends that addressing entitlement to service connection under the theory of continuity of symptomatology, still requires medical or, in certain circumstances ,lay evidence of a nexus.

Though establishing service connection generally requires evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability, 3.

303(b)relaxes the nexus requirement for veterans suffering from certain chronic diseases.