Citation Nr: 0809751 Decision Date: 03/24/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 00-12 154A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Virginia Department of Veterans Services WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1972 to February 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2000 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. A Board hearing was conducted August 2003, and a transcript of the hearing is of record. In May 2004, the case was remanded for the development of additional evidence and to provide the veteran with a VA examination. In December 2006, the Board denied the claims. The veteran appealed, and in October 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted a joint motion remanding the case to the Board for action consistent with the joint motion. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Board's May 2004 remand directed, inter alia, that the following be completed: the veteran must be afforded an orthopedic examination to ascertain the nature and etiology of his bilateral knee disorders. All tests and studies deemed necessary to make this determination should be ordered. The claims folder must be made available to the physician for review. The physician should opine whether it is at least as likely as not that a left and/or right knee disorder is related to service or any event that occurred therein. The physician must set forth the complete rationale underlying any conclusions drawn or opinions expressed, to include, as appropriate, citation to specific evidence in the record. In doing so, the physician should address any other opinions that are of record. (emphasis added) Unfortunately, the April 2005 VA examination conducted to fulfill this direction failed to address a June 1999 opinion of Dr. Crum, as well as a July 2000 opinion by Dr. Rice. That failure mandates further development. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Therefore, this case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should request that the veteran identify all VA and non-VA healthcare providers who have treated either knee disorder since December 2006. Thereafter, any pertinent records obtained should be associated with the claims file. All attempts to procure records should be documented in the file. If the RO cannot obtain records identified by the veteran, a written notation to that effect should be placed in the file. The veteran and his representative are to be notified of unsuccessful efforts in this regard. 2. The RO must review the claims file and ensure that all notification and development action required by 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 are fully complied with and satisfied. In particular, the veteran should be asked to submit all pertinent evidence in his possession that is not already of record which would tend to show a link between any current knee disorder and his military service. 3. Thereafter, the veteran must be afforded an orthopedic examination to ascertain the nature and etiology of any current knee disorder. All tests and studies deemed necessary to make this determination should be ordered. The claims folder must be made available to the physician for review. The physician must opine whether it is at least as likely as not that either a left and/or right knee disorder is related to service or any event that occurred therein, to include his history of 99 parachute jumps while on active duty. The physician must set forth the complete rationale underlying any conclusions drawn or opinions expressed, to include, as appropriate, citation to specific evidence in the record. In so doing, the physician must address any other medical opinions that are of record to include the June 1999 opinion of Dr. Crum, and the July 2000 opinion by Dr. Rice. If the examiner disagrees with either opinion the basis for that disagreement must be explained. 4. The veteran is hereby notified that it is his responsibility to report for the examination and to cooperate in the development of the claim. The consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2007). In the event that the veteran does not report for the aforementioned examination, documentation should be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the last known address. It should also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. 5. The RO should review the examination report to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this REMAND. If the report is deficient in any manner, the RO must implement corrective procedures. 6. Upon completion of the requested development above, the RO should again review the claim. The RO is advised that they are to make a determination based on the law and regulations in effect at the time of their decision, to include any further changes in VCAA and any other applicable legal precedent. If the benefits sought on appeal remains denied, the veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case. The supplemental statement of the case must contain notice of all relevant actions taken on the claim for benefits, to include a summary of the evidence and applicable law and regulations considered pertinent to the issue currently on appeal. A reasonable period of time should be allowed for response. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).