Citation Nr: 18151506 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/19/18 DOCKET NO. 15-02 678 DATE: November 20, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the knees is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Army from June 1978 to July 1994. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the knees is remanded. The Board finds that additional development is needed prior to final adjudication of the issues on appeal. The Board finds that a new examination is needed. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2012 for his claimed knee disability. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s history of knee pain began in service. However, in forming his opinion that the Veteran’s claimed conditions were less likely than not incurred or caused by an in-service injury, event, or illness the examiner did not appear to consider the Veteran’s statements that his knee pain began in service and continually worsened over time and accordingly this examination is inadequate. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). In this regard, the Board notes that the reasoning for the negative nexus opinion was that “almost all persons by the age of 45 have evidence of degenerative joint disease” is irrelevant. In a more detailed opinion dated that same month the e examiner noted the absence of reported pain from service until 2007 and then again not until 2012 which specifically ignores the Veteran’s reports of continuity of symptomatology. Accordingly, a new examination is warranted so that Veteran’s lay statements and service treatment records can be properly considered. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO must contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify or submit any additional pertinent evidence in support of the issues on appeal. Based on his response, the RO must attempt to procure copies of all records which have not previously been obtained from identified treatment sources. When requesting records not in the custody of a Federal department or agency, such as private treatment records, the RO must make an initial request for the records and at least one follow-up request if the records are not received or a response that records do not exist is not received. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claim file by the RO. If, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records the RO is unable to secure the same, the RO must notify the Veteran and (a) identify the specific records the RO is unable to obtain; (b) briefly explain the efforts that the RO made to obtain those records; (c) describe any further action to be taken by the RO with respect to the claim; and (d) that he is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence. The Veteran must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. After the above development has been completed, the Veteran must be afforded an appropriate VA examination to determine whether his currently diagnosed knee disabilities are related to his military service. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail and any indicated diagnostic tests and studies must be accomplished. The claim file must be made available to the examiner, and the examiner must specify in the examination report that these records have been reviewed. The examiner must elicit from the Veteran and record in the examination report a full history. The examiner should pay particular attention to lay evidence offered by the Veteran of symptoms in service with gradual worsening since as well as his service treatment records. After a review of the evidence of record, to include the Veteran’s statements, the examiner must specifically identify all disabilities of the knees and for each disability diagnosed should provide an opinion as to whether the diagnosed disability is related to the Veteran’s military service. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The examiner must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. The examiner must indicate whether an opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. 3. If upon completion of the above actions the claim remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Baronofsky Associate Counsel