Citation Nr: 1318164 Decision Date: 06/04/13 Archive Date: 06/11/13 DOCKET NO. 06-33 803 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael Wilson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1990 to May 1991. He additionally had Reserve service. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2005 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which, in relevant part, denied entitlement to service connection for chronic joint pain of the elbows, hips, and knees. The Board remanded this case for further evidentiary development in September 2010, February 2012, and October 2012. In the October 2012 decision, the Board separated the current claim for service connection for a right knee disability on appeal from the Veteran's claim for service connection for multiple joint pain. The Board proceeded to deny the claim for multiple joint pain in the October 2012 decision. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required on his part. REMAND The Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his right knee arthritis in March 2013. During the examination, the Veteran reported that the right knee injury that he sustained in 1978 or 1979 was treated pursuant to worker's compensation benefits. The Veteran's worker's compensation records have not been associated with the claims file. This claim must be remanded in order to request authorization for VA to obtain these records on the Veteran's behalf, or that he otherwise submit copies of these records himself. When the Board remanded this claim in October 2012, it instructed the RO/AMC to inform the Veteran that he should provide a release form in order for VA to obtain records of his treatment provided by a Dr. Kline on his behalf. In the event the Veteran did not provide the release form the RO/AMC was instructed to inform him that he may submit the records himself. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(2) (2012). A review of the record reveals that although the Veteran was specifically asked to provide a release for VA to obtain these identified records, he was not subsequently instructed to specifically submit these records himself after failing to provide the requested release. As the Board noted previously, the February 2012 addendum to the October 2010 VA examination report indicated that the Veteran had undergone a right knee meniscectomy in 1978 "apparently during reserve time," thus raising the implication that his current right knee arthritis may be related to his noted knee surgery. A May 1986 quadrennial examination report conducted in conjunction with the Veteran's Reserve service noted that he had cartilage removed from his knee by a Dr. Kline in 1979. An April 1982 quadrennial examination report noted that the Veteran was treated by Dr. Kline in January 1979 at Franklin Hospital in Franklin, Pennsylvania, for torn cartilage of the right knee. These records could prove vital in determining whether service connection is warranted for the Veteran's claim. Finally, the Board additionally directed that the Veteran's periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) be verified, especially for those periods in 1978 and 1979. While the RO/AMC obtained copies of the Veteran's pay records from much of his Reserve service, records prior to June 1978 were not obtained. On remand, the RO/AMC should seek to verify the Veteran's periods ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA service for the remaining portion of the year of 1978. In addition, while the payroll records show the periods for which the Veteran was paid, it is not clear whether the payments were for ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. This matter might be cleared up, if the explanation was provided for abbreviations used in these records. The Veteran's service personnel records have not been obtained, but may also confirm his periods of reserve service. The Veteran is to be reminded that VA's duty to assist is not a one-way street. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). More specifically, if the Board is left to decide his claim without the benefit of obtaining all potentially favorable evidence, it may have no recourse but to deny the claim. Accordingly, this claim is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a complete copy of the Veteran's service personnel records. 2. Verify the Veteran' s periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA prior to June 1978. Ask the service department to clarify the meaning of the abbreviations used in his payroll records, specifically "UT" and "AT." 3. After obtaining any necessary release forms, obtain a complete copy of all decisions and underlying medical records pertaining to the Veteran's application for worker's compensation benefits. Additionally ask the Veteran to complete a release to obtain the records of his right knee surgery in 1978 or 1979, to include records from Dr. Kline and Franklin Hospital. If the Veteran fails to provide needed authorizations, tell him that he should obtain the records and submit them himself. If any requested records cannot be obtained, inform the Veteran; also tell him what efforts were made to obtain the records and what additional actions will be undertaken with regard to his claims. 4. If additional evidence is obtained with respect to the Veteran's claimed right knee disability, obtain an addendum VA opinion from the examiner that provided the March 2013 VA examination, or an equally qualified examiner, with respect to whether it is at least as likely as not that any current right knee disability, to include arthritis, is related to the Veteran's right knee injury or subsequent surgery. The examiner must provide reasons for all opinions, addressing the relevant medical and lay evidence of record. 5. Thereafter, review the claims file to ensure that the foregoing requested development, including any requested medical comment from VA examiners, has been completed. If any requested development is not complete, implement corrective procedures. 6. If the Veteran's claim on appeal remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case, and then return his appeal to the Board, if otherwise in order. The Veteran 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ Mark D. Hindin 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. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).