Citation Nr: 18155610 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 16-58 981 DATE: December 4, 2018 ORDER The claim of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s left knee degenerative joint disease is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Preliminary Matters The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Army from October 1986 to January 1992. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that in a May 2014 notice of disagreement (NOD), the Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for a left knee disability. Subsequently, the Veteran filed another NOD in July 2014, appealing the denial of service connection for a left knee disability and a right knee disability. In a July 2014 written statement, the Veteran clarified that he wished to only appeal the denial of service connection for his left knee disability. Thus, the issue has been stated accordingly on the title page. Service Connection Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995). In addition, for certain chronic diseases, such as arthritis, a presumption of service connection arises if the disease is manifested to a degree of 10 percent within one year following discharge from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). The presumption is rebuttable by probative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.309, 3.309(a). When chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support a claim for such diseases. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Finally, 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) requires that VA give ‘due consideration’ to ‘all pertinent medical and lay evidence’ in evaluating a claim for disability. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Specifically, ‘[l]ay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional.’ Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, the Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not reflect that the Veteran had any left knee problems upon entry into active service. A service treatment record dated April 1990 shows that the Veteran complained of left knee pain. The Veteran reported that he experienced dull pain in both knees, with more pain felt in the left knee, while running. The examiner provided an assessment of chronic knee pain. Service treatment records dated January 1991, November 1991, and December 1991 show that the Veteran continued to complain of constant left knee pain. Notably, the December 1991 service treatment record shows that the examiner noted no improvement in the left knee condition. Additionally, a November 1991 in-service physical profile shows that the Veteran’s assignment limitations included no deep knee bends and no cutting moves or sprints. Post-service medical records show that the Veteran continued to complain of left knee pain following separation from service. A February 2011 VA treatment record shows that the Veteran complained of knee pain. An October 2012 VA treatment record shows that the Veteran reported that he had suffered from bilateral knee pain since service. He further reported that he experienced pain and swelling on and off. The examiner assessed the Veteran with bilateral knee pain and noted a possible diagnosis of osteoarthritis. In June 2013, the Veteran underwent a VA examination for his knees. The examiner diagnosed degenerative joint disease in both knees and provided a negative nexus opinion. However, the Board finds that the unvarying statements of the Veteran regarding the onset of his symptoms and his symptoms since service to be competent and credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, the record reflects that the Veteran’s left knee disability did not exist prior to service, and that the Veteran was assessed with chronic left knee pain while in service. Further, the record shows that the Veteran’s left knee condition continued post-service. As noted in the preceding paragraph, the Veteran is certainly competent to testify to symptomatology such as chronic pain. Thus, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for degenerative joint disease of the left knee is warranted. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Y. MacDonald, Associate Counsel