Citation Nr: 0810362 Decision Date: 03/28/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 06-04 543 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Dan Brook, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant is a veteran who served on active duty from July 1968 to August 1970 with subsequent duty in the reserves. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2005 rating decision of the Seattle, Washington Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned in February 2008; a transcript of the hearing is of record. 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 At his February 2008 hearing and in earlier statements the veteran testified that he injured his knee sometime between August 1970 and December 1970, while aboard ship during weekend Naval Reserve service. He stated he was down in front of the bilge, helping a welder grinding material and welding some stuff. He indicated he was straddling the beam and using the grinder when it slipped off and got into the side of his knee. In response to the injury, he stated, he went over to the San Clemente Naval Air Station where the knee was bandaged. He reported the staff at the air station indicated that they were in a hurry so they did not actually stitch the knee up. The veteran's representative then pointed out that the veteran had a scar in the area. The veteran further testified that he had not previously injured the left knee in a way to produce such a scar. The record shows that the veteran attempted to obtain a record of his treatment for the injury from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) but was not successful. He also noted that the records of treatment should have been housed (at least at some point) at the Naval Station in Sand Point, Seattle but the record does not appear to indicate whether the veteran also requested records of any treatment from this station. Also, it does not appear that the RO affirmatively attempted to obtain any existing records of this treatment from any source. Additionally, the Board notes that the record contains evidence in the form of a November 2004 private medical record and subsequent June 2006 VA medical record showing that the veteran has some level of current left knee disability. As the Board finds the testimony regarding the veteran's injury credible, further development by the RO is necessary to attempt to obtain documentation of the treatment the veteran received for his left knee injury. Regardless of whether actual documentation is found, the veteran should subsequently be scheduled for a VA examination to determine whether his current knee disability is related to the knee injury in service. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should ask the veteran to identify with as much specificity as possible when the 1970 injury to his left knee during reserve service occurred. The RO should then attempt to obtain documentation of treatment for the injury from all potential sources including the NPRC, the Sand Point Naval Station in Seattle and the San Clemente Naval Air Station. 2. The RO should ask the veteran to identify all sources of treatment or evaluation he has received for his left knee disability from June 2006 to the present and should secure copies of complete records of the treatment or evaluation from all sources identified. 3. The RO should then arrange for a VA examination by an appropriate physician to determine the nature and etiology of the veteran's current left knee disability. Included in this determination should be an assessment of whether the veteran's scar causes any impairment independent of the veteran's overall knee pathology. The veteran's claims folder should be made available for review by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Any indicated tests should be performed. The examiner should then provide an opinion whether such disability is at least as likely as not related to the veteran's injury during Naval Reserve service in 1970. The examiner should explain the rationale for the opinion given. 4. The RO should then readjudicate the claim. If it remains denied, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and provide the veteran and his representative the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. No action is required of the appellant until he is notified. 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). This claim 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). _________________________________________________ James L. March 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).