BVA9508040 DOCKET NO. 92-25 115 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeffrey J. Schueler, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from July 1983 to July 1991. The issues for consideration before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) were originally entitlement to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae and entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. In a September 1994 decision, the Board granted service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae. The sole remaining issue for appellate consideration is service connection for a back disorder. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that service connection is warranted for a back disorder. He maintains that he injured his back during active service and that this disorder has persisted since service separation. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for service connection for a back disorder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the regional office (RO). 2. The back injury the veteran experienced during service was acute and transitory and resolved without any chronic residual disability. 3. It is not shown that the veteran now has a chroic back disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW A back disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159 (a), 3.303 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Board finds initially that the appellant's claim is well- grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); that is, the claim is not inherently implausible. We also find that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has satisfied its statutory obligation to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159 (a) (1994). In a September 1994 remand, the Board directed that the veteran be afforded a VA orthopedic examination to determine whether the veteran has a back disorder. A review of the record shows that the copy of the Board's remand mailed to the veteran was returned as undeliverable. Later, a copy of the RO's December 1994 rating action was also returned as undeliverable. A December 1994 report of contact indicates that attempts by the representative to contact the veteran by phone or mail were unsuccessful. "The duty to assist is not always a one-way street," Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 193 (1991), and without the veteran's address it is impossible to assist him in the factual development required in this case. On appellate review, we see no areas in which further efforts at development would be fruitful. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 1991). For a showing of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word "chronic." Continuity of symptomatology is required where the condition noted during service is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1994). The veteran's service medical records reveal that on examination for enlistment in December 1982 there were no clinical findings or complaints regarding a back disorder. In July 1990 the veteran injured his back when he fell from a fork-lift. He was taken to a hospital where he complained of low back pain. X-rays of the back revealed a normal lumbar spine. The assessment was contusions of the back with a lumbosacral strain. The veteran was seen again several days later complaining of soreness in the back and occasional sharp, stabbing sensation with no paresthesia or radiating pain. Examination was negative and the assessment was of a resolving lumbosacral strain. A September 1990 treatment record shows that the veteran complained of pain in the middle of his back after he awoke, with sharp pain for two to three minutes. Examination revealed full range of motion and no deformities or point tenderness. The impression was of mechanical back pain. In February 1991, the veteran complained of upper back pain and acute muscle strain was diagnosed. On separation examination in July 1991, there were no clinical findings or complaints of a back disorder. On a VA examination in December 1991, the veteran reported occasional exacerbations of back pain treated with Tylenol. Physical examinanition revealed no abnormality. The physician's impression was low back pain. The physician noted that the veteran had a normal lumbar flexion and extension and that there was no neurological evidence of radiculopathy or any evidence of motor weakness. X-rays revealed a normal lumbar spine with mild levoconvex lumbar scoliosis. At his personal hearing in August 1992, the veteran testified that he injured his back in July 1990 when he was thrown from a fork-lift, and that at the time he suffered from pain on movement and inability to bend over. He noted that the pain went down his legs and then up his back for approximately three days and then it gradually went away. He stated that he was given medication and several days off, and when he returned to work, was placed on light duty. He also testified that he had a second incident of back pain several months later. The veteran reported that after service separation he continued to have pain a couple of time a week and took muscle relaxants. He testified that he currently had shooting pains, occasionally felt a tingle below his buttocks, and had difficulty bending from time to time. To establish service connection for a claimed disability, there must be evidence that the claimed disability exists and evidence which shows a nexus between the disability and the claimant's service or a service connected disability. Here, the evidence amply demonstrates that the veteran sustained a back injury in service. What is missing is evidence of current disability and evidence of a nexus between the current disability and the injury in service. The Board attempted to assist the veteran in developing his claim by remanding the case for a VA examination. However, the veteran has moved and his whereabouts are unknown. Consequently, he was not examined and the record does not show that he has a chronic back disorder. The Board notes that the veteran testified that he has back pain and disability resulting from an injury in service. However, as a layperson, he is not competent to render a medical opinion regarding the presence or etiology of a back disorder. While the Board has no reason to doubt his testimony that he has symptoms of pain in his back, such lay testimony is insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis. In the absence of medical evidence of current disability resulting from the injury in service, service connection for such disability is not warranted. ORDER Service connection for a back disorder is denied. GEORGE R. SENYK Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.