Citation Nr: 18142922 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 10-19 413 DATE: October 17, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating prior to March 19, 2013 and in excess of 20 percent thereafter for bilateral hearing loss bilateral is denied. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee strain is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to May 10, 2013 for the award of service connection for right knee strain is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to March 19, 2013, audiometric testing conducted shows that, at worst, the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability was manifested by no more than Level III hearing loss in the right ear and Level III in the left ear. 2. From March 19, 2013, audiometric testing conducted shows that the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability has been manifested by no more than Level V hearing loss in both the right and the left ears. 3. Throughout the rating period on appeal, the Veteran’s right knee strain has, at worst, been manifested by limitation of motion with flexion to 80 degrees with evidence of pain at 80 degrees and extension to 0 degrees; there is no evidence of symptoms approximating flexion limited to 30 degrees or extension limited to 15 degrees. 4. The Veteran’s petition to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability was received by VA on May 10, 2013. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an initial compensable rating prior March 19, 2013 and in excess of 20 percent thereafter for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.1-4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100 (2017). 2. The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5260, 5261 (2017). 3. The criteria for an effective earlier than May 10, 2013 for the award of service connection for right knee strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110 (2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from July 1984 to November 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from September 2009 and July 2014 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in Nashville, Tennessee. In the September 2009 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and assigned a noncompensable rating, effective June 5, 2009. The Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge at a Board videoconference hearing in May 2011 for the hearing loss claim on appeal. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The issue of entitlement to an initial increased rating for bilateral hearing loss was before the Board in January 2013 at which time it was remanded for additional evidentiary development. Following the requested development, the RO increased the rating for the Veteran’s service-connected hearing loss disability to 20 percent disabling, effective March 19, 2013. In the July 2014 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for right knee strain and assigned a 10 percent rating, effective May 10, 2013. The hearing loss claim was again remanded by the Board in June 2015. A review of the record shows that the RO has complied with the remand instructions. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In the Veteran’s November 2017 substantive appeal (VA Form 9), he requested a Board hearing for his right knee claims on appeal. However, in a May 2018 Report of General Information, it was noted that the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing. In light of the forgoing, the hearing request is considered withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e) (2017). In a Board letter issued in June 2018, the Veteran was notified that the Veterans Law Judge who presided over his May 2011 Board hearing is no longer employed by the Board. He was informed that he had a right to another Board hearing. In correspondence received in July 2018, the Veteran indicted that he did not wish to appear at another Board hearing and requested that his claim be considered on the evidence of record. The Board observes that in a May 2018 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and assigned a noncompensable rating, effective August 18, 2014. Thereafter, in a July 2018 rating decision, the RO increased the rating for the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD to 70 percent disabling, effective June 20, 2018. In September 2018, the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD). A statement of the case (SOC) has not been issued with regards to this claim. Generally, the filing of an NOD confers jurisdiction on the Board and the next step is for the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to issue an SOC. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). However, because the Board’s review of the claims file reveals that the RO is still taking action on this claim, the Board will not exercise formal jurisdiction over it at this time. Increased Rating Claims Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. Evaluations are based upon lack of usefulness of the part or system affected, especially in self-support. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10 (2017). Where a claimant appeals the initial rating assigned for a disability when a claim for service connection for that disability has been granted, evidence contemporaneous with the claim for service connection and with the rating decision granting service connection would be most probative of the degree of disability existing at the time that the initial rating was assigned and should be the evidence “used to decide whether an [initial] rating on appeal was erroneous...” Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). If later evidence obtained during the appeal period indicates that the degree of disability increased or decreased following the assignment of the initial rating, “staged” ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found. Id. For disabilities evaluated on the basis of limitation of motion, VA is required to apply the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, pertaining to functional impairment. The Court has instructed that in applying these regulations VA should obtain examinations in which the examiner determined whether the disability was manifested by weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, or pain. Such inquiry is not to be limited to muscles or nerves. These determinations are, if feasible, to be expressed in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to any weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, flare-ups, or pain. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Johnston v. Brown,10 Vet. App. 80, 84-85 (1997);38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2017). Pain without accompanying functional limitation cannot serve as the basis for a higher rating. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 33, 43 (2011). It is, however, VA’s policy to grant at least the minimal compensable rating for actually painful motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2017). Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3 (2017). 1. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating prior to March 19, 2013 and 20 percent thereafter for bilateral hearing loss bilateral Hearing loss is rated under the criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Code 6100. Under VA regulation, an examination for hearing impairment must be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a puretone audiometry test. Examinations are to be conducted without the use of hearing aids. To evaluate the degree of disability from defective hearing, the rating schedule establishes 11 auditory acuity levels from Level I for essentially normal acuity through Level XI for profound deafness. These are assigned based on a combination of the percent of speech discrimination and the puretone threshold average, as contained in a series of tables within the regulations. The puretone threshold average is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (2017). This average is used in all cases to determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from Table VI or VIa. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(d) (2017). Table VII, “Percentage Evaluations for Hearing Impairment,” is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. The horizontal rows represent the ear having the better hearing and the vertical columns the ear having the poorer hearing. The percentage evaluation is located at the point where the row and column intersect. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(e). The regulatory provisions also provide two circumstances under which alternative tables can be employed. One is where the puretone thresholds in each of the five frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 Hertz are 55 decibels or greater. The second is where puretone thresholds are 30 decibels or less at frequencies of 1,000 Hertz, and are 70 decibels or more at 2,000 Hertz. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (2017). The standard of proof to be applied in decisions on claims for VA benefits is set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Under that provision, VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Factual Background Post-service VA clinical records note audiological treatment for hearing loss. Notably, in an audiology consultation in June 2009, it was reported that the Veteran exhibited puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: Hz 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 35 55 45 LEFT 15 45 50 55 The average puretone threshold was 39 in the right ear and 41 in the left ear. Speech audiometry using the Maryland CNC word list revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left ear. The Veteran underwent a VA audiological examination in July 2009. He exhibited puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: Hz 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 35 55 45 LEFT 15 55 55 50 The average puretone threshold was 39 in the right ear and 44 in the left ear. Speech audiometry using the Maryland CNC word list revealed speech recognition ability of 80 percent in the right ear and 78 percent in the left ear. In a November 2010 VA audiology consultation, it was reported that the Veteran exhibited puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: Hz 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 20 40 60 45 LEFT 20 55 60 60 The average puretone threshold was 41 in the right ear and 49 in the left ear. Speech audiometry using the Maryland CNC word list revealed speech recognition ability of 84 percent bilaterally. A final VA examination was provided in March 2013. At that time, he exhibited puretone thresholds, in decibels, as follows: Hz 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 25 40 60 50 LEFT 25 60 60 55 The average puretone threshold was 44 in the right ear and 50 in the left ear. Speech audiometry using the Maryland CNC word list revealed speech recognition ability of 66 percent in the right ear and 74 percent in the left ear. Analysis Applying the facts in this case to the criteria set forth above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of an initial compensable rating prior to March 19, 2013 and 20 percent thereafter for bilateral hearing loss. Prior to March 19, 2013 As set forth above, the Veteran was provided a VA audiological consultation in June 2009. The audiological evaluation conducted at that time showed that the Veteran had an average puretone threshold of 36 decibels on the right with speech discrimination of 100 percent. He exhibited an average puretone threshold of 41 decibels on the left with speech discrimination of 96 percent. Applying these audiological findings to Table VI in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields a finding of Level I in the right and Level I in the left ear. When those values are applied to Table VII, it is apparent that the assigned noncompensable evaluation is accurate and appropriately reflects the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Moreover, at the July 2009 VA examination, audiological evaluation showed that the Veteran had an average puretone threshold of 39 decibels on the right with speech discrimination of 80 percent. He exhibited an average puretone threshold of 44 decibels on the left with speech discrimination of 78 percent. Applying these audiological findings to Table VI in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields a finding of Level III in the right and Level III in the left ear. When those values are applied to Table VII, it is apparent that the assigned noncompensable evaluation is accurate and appropriately reflects the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Lastly, the Board observes that the results from a November 2010 VA audiological consultation showed that the Veteran had an average puretone threshold of 41 decibels on the right with speech discrimination of 84 percent. He exhibited an average puretone threshold of 49 decibels on the left with speech discrimination of 84 percent. Applying these audiological findings to Table VI in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields a finding of Level II bilaterally. When those values are applied to Table VII, it is apparent that the assigned noncompensable evaluation is accurate and appropriately reflects the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The Board has also considered the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, but the results of this audiometric examination shows that the alternative table is not applicable. The Board has carefully reviewed the remaining record in its entirety, but finds no other probative evidence of record showing that the Veteran’s hearing loss disability is more severe for compensation purposes than demonstrated on the VA audiological evaluations discussed above. In sum, throughout this stage of the appeal, the Veteran’s level of disability has most nearly approximated that contemplated by his current evaluation. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable and the claim of entitlement an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss prior to March 19, 2013 is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54-56 (1990). From March 19, 2013 The Veteran underwent a VA examination in March 2013 of the purpose of evaluating his hearing acuity during this stage of the appeal. Audiological evaluation conducted at that time showed an average puretone threshold of 44 decibels on the right with speech discrimination of 66 percent. He exhibited an average puretone threshold of 50 decibels on the left with speech discrimination of 74 percent. Applying these audiological findings to Table VV in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 yields a finding of Level V in the right and Level V in the left ear. When those values are applied to Table VII, a 20 percent disability rating is assigned under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has not been afforded a more recent examination. However, neither the Veteran nor his representative have alleged, and the evidence does not show, that the service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability has worsened since the March 2013 VA examination. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 182 (2007) (mere passage of time does not require VA to provide a new medical examination); see also VAOPGCPREC 11-95. The Board has also considered the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, but the results of the audiometric examinations discussed above show that application of the alternative table does not result in a rating in excess of 20 percent. The Board has carefully reviewed the remaining record in its entirety, but finds no other probative evidence of record showing that the Veteran’s hearing loss disability is more severe for compensation purposes than demonstrated on the VA audiological evaluations discussed above. In reaching its decision with respect to both periods above, the Board in no way discounts the difficulties that the Veteran experiences as a result of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss disability. However, disability ratings for hearing impairment are derived by a mechanical application of the rating schedule to the numeric designation assigned after audiometry results are obtained. Hence, the Board must base its determination on the results of the pertinent and valid VA audiology studies. See Lendenmann, 3. Vet. App. at 345. In other words, the Board is bound by law to apply VA’s rating schedule based on the Veteran’s audiometry results. See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. In exceptional cases an extraschedular rating may be provided. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (2017). The Court has set out a three-part test, based on the language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1), for determining whether a veteran is entitled to an extraschedular rating: (1) the established schedular criteria must be inadequate to describe the severity and symptoms of the claimant’s disability; (2) the case must present other indicia of an exceptional or unusual disability picture, such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization; and (3) the award of an extraschedular disability rating must be in the interest of justice. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008), aff’d, Thun v. Shinseki, 572 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Therefore, initially, there must be a comparison between the level of severity and symptomatology of the claimant’s service-connected disability with the established criteria found in the rating schedule for that disability. The Board finds that the rating criteria contemplate the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss disability. His hearing loss is manifested by decreased hearing acuity, with particular difficulty understanding conversations in noisy environments. A comparison between the level of severity and symptomatology of the Veteran’s assigned rating with the established criteria found in the rating schedule shows that the rating criteria reasonably describe the Veteran’s disability level and symptomatology, including his difficulty hearing and understanding speech. The Board notes that this conclusion is consistent with the Court’s holding in Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017) (holding that when a claimant’s hearing loss results in an inability to hear or understand speech or to hear other sounds in various contexts, those effects are contemplated by the schedular rating criteria ). The Board further finds that other than difficulty hearing or understanding speech, the record on appeal contains no evidence of other symptoms attributable to the service-connected hearing loss, such as dizziness, vertigo, or ear pain, not contemplated by the rating criteria. Because the rating criteria reasonably describe the claimant’s disability level and symptomatology, the Veteran’s disability picture is contemplated by the Rating Schedule, such that the assigned schedular evaluations are, therefore, adequate, and no referral is required. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111, 115-116 (2008); VAOPGCPREC 6-96. The evidence does not show anything unique or unusual about the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss that would render the schedular criteria inadequate. In sum, throughout the stage of the appeal, the Veteran’s level of disability has most nearly approximated that contemplated by his current evaluations. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable and the claim is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54-56 (1990). 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee strain The Veteran’s right knee disability has been rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260, which pertains to limitation of flexion. The VA General Counsel has also held that separate ratings under 38 C.F.R. Diagnostic Code 5260 (limitation of flexion of the leg) and Diagnostic Code 5261 (limitation of extension of the leg) may be assigned for disability of the same joint. VAOGCPREC 9-2004 (September 17, 2004). Diagnostic Code 5260 provides ratings based on limitation of flexion of the leg. Flexion of the leg limited to 60 degrees warrants a noncompensable (0 percent) rating; flexion of the leg limited to 45 degrees warrants a 10 percent rating; flexion of the leg limited to 30 degrees warrants a 20 percent rating; and flexion of the leg limited to 15 degrees warrants a 30 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Diagnostic Code 5261 provides ratings based on limitation of extension of the leg. Extension of the leg limited to 5 degrees warrants a noncompensable (0 percent) rating; extension of the leg limited to 10 degrees warrants a 10 percent rating; extension of the leg limited to 15 degrees warrants a 20 percent rating; extension of the leg limited to 20 degrees warrants a 30 percent rating; extension of the leg limited to 30 degrees warrants a 40 percent rating; and extension of the leg limited to 45 degrees warrants a 50 rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Factual Background The Veteran was provided a VA examination in June 2013. There was no diagnosis of a right knee disability at that time. However, flare-ups of pain were reported. The Veteran indicated that flare-ups impacted walking upstairs, prolonged sitting and standing, and going downhill. On range of motion testing, the Veteran had flexion to 80 degrees with objective evidence of painful motion at 80 degrees and extension to 0 degrees with no objective evidence of painful motion. There was no change in range of motion following repetitive-use testing. However, it was noted that the Veteran had functional loss and/or functional impairment of the knee following repetitive-use testing. The contributing factors included less movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and pain on movement. Muscle strength testing and joint stability test revealed normal results and there was no evidence of patellar subluxation/dislocation. Subsequent VA clinical records demonstrate complaints of and treatment for right knee pain. In a June 2014 medical opinion, a VA clinician opined that he could not provide an opinion regarding the right knee flare-ups reported at the during the June 2013 examination without resorting to mere speculation because there was insufficient medical evidence upon which to base such an opinion. The Veteran underwent an additional VA examination in August 2017 at which time right knee strain was assessed. With regards to flare-ups, the Veteran reported chronic knee pain that is exacerbated by walking, standing for long periods of time, heavy lifting, carrying heavy objects, and bending. On range of motion testing, the Veteran had flexion from 0 to 90 degrees and extension from 90 to 0 degrees. It was noted that pain caused functional loss on flexion. There was no evidence of pain with weight bearing or objective evidence of localized tenderness with or pain on palpitation of the joint or associated soft tissue. There was also no objective evidence of crepitus. There was no additional functional loss with repetitive-use testing. The examiner indicated that there was pain on passive range of motion. Although the examination was not conducted following repeated use over time, the examiner opined that pain on repeated used caused functional loss. Notwithstanding, he opined that following repeated use, the Veteran had flexion from 0 to 90 degrees and extension from 90 to 0 degrees. Similar findings were provided for the Veteran’s reported right knee flare-ups. Additionally, muscle strength testing and joint stability test results were normal and there was no evidence of muscle atrophy or ankylosis. With regards to surgical procedures, it was noted that the Veteran had a cyst removal in March 1988, but there were no residuals but for a right knee scar measuring 5 centimeters by 1 centimeter. VA clinical records following the August 2017 VA examination demonstrate continued treatment for right knee pain. Notably, in an October 2017 VA medical record, it was noted that the Veteran did not give a specific history of locking, giving way, or significant swelling. His primary complaint was knee pain, with the examiner noting that the Veteran was on his feet more working at his job in the postal service. On range of motion evaluation, the Veteran had extension to -10 degrees and flexion to 90 degrees. There was no joint effusion and the knee was found to be stable. There was no painful patellofemoral crepitation. Analysis Applying the facts in this case to the criteria set forth above, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee strain. In this regard, while the Veteran reported right knee pain, at worst, the Veteran’s right knee disability has been manifested by flexion to 80 degrees with evidence of pain at 80 degrees and extension to 0 degrees. At no time during the period on appeal has the Veteran’s right knee strain been manifested by flexion limited to 30 degrees or extension limited to 20 degrees. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has pointed to any evidence which would support a rating in excess of 10 percent. As such, a rating in excess of 10 percent based on limitation of motion is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5260, 5261. The Board has considered additional limitation of function per 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 and DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 206 -07 (1995). In this regard, the Veteran has complained of pain and flare-ups. However, despite the noted symptoms, the objective evidence of record does not show any additional functional limitation that is tantamount to interference in range of motion beyond that already compensated. The Board observes that the June 2013 VA examiner did not provide an opinion regarding limitation of motion during flare-ups. However, the August 2017 VA examiner opined that during flare-ups, the Veteran had flexion from 0 to 90 degrees and extension from 90 to 0 degrees. Thus, while the Veteran has reported limitations during flare-ups, the available evidence does not show that such limitation is causes limitation of motion to warrant a higher rating. Considering factors of the frequency and severity of the Veteran’s flare-ups and the reported functional loss and objective findings such as lack of atrophy, the Board concludes that the Veteran’s symptoms do not more nearly approximate the criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent. The Board has considered all potentially applicable diagnostic codes in accordance with Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). However, there is no evidence of ankylosis of the knee (Diagnostic Code 5256), recurrent subluxation or lateral instability (Diagnostic Code 5257), dislocated or removal of symptomatic semilunar cartilage (Diagnostic Codes 5258, 5259), impairment of the tibia and fibula (Diagnostic Code 5262), or genu recurvatum (Diagnostic Code 5263). 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Thus, separate or higher ratings are not warranted under any other diagnostic code for disabilities of the knee. The Board observes that the Veteran has a right knee scar. However, service connection for the right knee scar was granted in an August 2017 rating decision. The Veteran has not expressed disagreement with the assigned rating. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran’s right knee disability. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017). Earlier Effective Date Claim 3. Entitlement to an effective date prior to May 10, 2013 for the award of service connection for right knee strain As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that, effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to require that all claims governed by VA’s adjudication regulations be filed on a standard form. The amendments also, inter alia, eliminate the constructive receipt of VA reports of hospitalization or examination and other medical records as informal claims to reopen. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014), codified as amended at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.151, 3.155, 3.157. The amended regulations, however, apply only to claims filed on or after March 24, 2015. Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. If a claim for disability compensation is received within one year after separation from service, the effective date of entitlement is the day following separation or the date entitlement arose. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). Otherwise, it is the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The standard of proof to be applied in decisions on claims for VA benefits is set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Under that provision, VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2014); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Factual Background The Veteran asserts that an effective date prior to May 10, 2013 is warranted for his service-connected right knee disability. In the Veteran’s notice of disagreement received in August 2015, he asserted that service connection should be awarded back to 1992. He indicated that his original claim of service connection for a right knee disability and venereal warts was filed in 1992 and denied in 1993. He stated that he filed a letter of disagreement following the denial. He also argued that VA failed to inform him of the March 2000 rating decision. The record on appeals shows that in December 1990, the Veteran filed a claim of service connection for scars. There was no claim of service connection for a right knee disability at that time, either express or implied. In October 1992, the Veteran filed a claim of service connection for a left thigh scar. Again, there was no claim of service connection for a right knee disability raised at that time. In May 1993, the Veteran filed a petition to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for scar. A claim for a right knee disability was not raised at that time. In June 1999, the Veteran’s initial claim of service connection for a right knee disability was received by VA. The claim was denied in a March 2000 rating decision. The record on appeal indicates that the Veteran was notified of the RO’s determination in a March 2000 letter. There is no indication that the letter was returned by postal authorities as undeliverable. The Veteran did not appeal the RO’s determination and no new and material evidence was received within a year of the issuance of the rating decision. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has argued otherwise. Thus, the RO’s March 2000 rating decision is final. The claim was reconsidered in an April 2003 rating decision. The Veteran was notified of the decision and his appellate rights in an April 2003 letter. Again, he did not appeal the RO’s determination and no new and material evidence was received within a year of the issuance of the rating decision. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has argued otherwise. Thus, the RO’s April 2003 rating decision is final. On May 10, 2013, the Veteran’s petition to reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for a right knee disability was received. In a July 2014 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for a right knee disability, effective May 10, 2013. Analysis After reviewing both the law and the facts set forth above, the Board finds that an effective date prior to May 10, 2013, for the award of service connection for the Veteran’s right knee disability is not warranted. As detailed herein, the initial claim of service connection was received in June 1999 and was denied in a March 2000 rating decision. There is no indication that the Veteran appealed the March 2000 rating decision and no new and material evidence was received within a year of notification of that decision. The Veteran has not argued otherwise. The claim was again denied in an April 2003 rating decision. The evidence available to the Board does not show that the Veteran appealed the April 2003 rating decision and no new and material evidence was received within a year of notification of that decision. Thus, the March 2000 and April 2003 rating decisions are final. The Veteran’s petition to reopen the claim was received on May 10, 2013. Neither the Veteran, nor his representative submitted any written correspondence which could be construed as a formal or informal claim to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability prior to May 10, 2013. In reaching this conclusion, the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s argument that he did not receive the March 2000 rating decision. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that any mail was returned to the RO as undeliverable and there are no irregularities evident in the mailing of that notification letter. Thus, he is legally presumed to have received that letter. Moreover, the claim was subsequently denied in an April 2003 rating decision, which was mailed to the same address as the March 2000 rating decision. The Veteran has not asserted that the April 2003 rating decision and accompanying notification letter were not received. The Board also acknowledges that Veteran’s contention that an effective date in 1992 is warranted. However, as detailed herein, the Veteran’s initial claim of service connection for a right knee disability was received in June 1999. The claim was denied in unappealed rating decisions in March 2000 and April 2003 rating. Thus, for the reasons and bases set forth above, the Board finds that the effective date for the grant of service connection for a right knee disability is no earlier than the currently assigned date of May 10, 2013. Accordingly, the benefit sought on appeal is denied. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Jones, Counsel