Yes. US soldier Reuben Frank Bernard (1834-1903) is the subject of a biography by Don Russell titled: One Hundred and Three Frights and scrimmages: The Story of General Reuben F. Bernard (1936). So apparently he survived 103 battles and skirmishes in the US Civil War and the Indian Wars.
And to get more "medieval" on you Charlemagne (742/748-814) went on campaign almost every year of his adult life, for forty years or so, and may have fought several battles and sieges in each campaign. Thus he seems to have survived medieval warfare fairly well.
Irish High King and King of Mide Mael Sechnaill mac Domnaill (949-1022) fought many battles and campaigns, until at least the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 when he was 65. Brian Boru (c. 941-1014), king of Munster and high King of Ireland, fought many wars and battles before being killed at the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 aged about 73.
Clearly the odds of being killed in each battle in medieval Ireland were small enough that some war leaders could survive forty or fifty years of war.
Before about 1900 it was common for more soldiers to die from disease on campaign than from battle wounds. It was also common for battles to last just a few hours.
But in World War One and World War Two, and some other 20th century wars, it was common for some battles to last several days, weeks or months. Soldiers could be under fire constantly for weeks or months, unless their units were periodically rotated in and out of the combat zone.
Thus during 20th century wars some soldiers accumulated tens and hundreds of combat days. Each time a soldier is in combat he has a chance of being killed or physically or mentally incapacitated.
I believe that I read somewhere that a soldier would have almost zero chance of being combat ready after some number - 300 I think - of days in battle. Either he would be dead, or discharged because of his wounds, or suffer from PTSD.
If that is correct, and if medieval combat was equally deadly per minute as 20th century combat, then a medieval warrior could survive 12 battles (each lasting a few hours), or 27 battles, or 53 battles, or 79 battles, or 104 battles, without it being very improbable. A warrior would fight only a few battles per campaign season, so he might only fight in ten to forty battles per decade.
What would be more and more improbable was his surviving campaign after campaign in the unhealthy conditions of medieval warfare without getting sick and dying. But it is all a matter of statistical probability. In an army on campaign it is possible that everyone had the same chance of being killed in battle or of getting sick and dying. Some would get sick and die before the first battle, some would be killed in battle, some would be wounded more or less seriously etc., and most of the soldiers would survive the entire campaign.
If medieval war was as dangerous as the OP said, the nobles would have been pacifists, not warriors.