Citation Nr: 18155941 Decision Date: 12/06/18 Archive Date: 12/06/18 DOCKET NO. 16-02 349 DATE: December 6, 2018 ORDER Service connection for chronic chondromalacia of the patella/femoral trochlea and chronic synovial impingement, status post arthroscopic surgery of the left knee, is granted.   FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has a current left knee disorder and it is related to an injury during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for chronic chondromalacia of the patella/femoral trochlea and chronic synovial impingement, status post arthroscopic surgery of the left knee, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 2007 to July 2008. The case is on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision. In November 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. Service connection for a left knee disorder. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. A veteran seeking compensation under these provisions must establish three elements: “(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.” Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Veteran contends that he has a current left knee disorder related to an injury to the left knee during service in May 2007 while playing football. Specifically, private treatment records from March 2017 show a current diagnosis of chronic chondromalacia of the patella/femoral trochlea and chronic synovial impingement. More recently, in July 2017, he underwent arthroscopic surgery on the left knee. Furthermore, the service treatment records (STRs) confirm treatment for the left knee in May 2007. He was seen three days after taking a foot to the knee while playing football. He continued to have symptoms thereafter despite numerous Orthopedic consultations and physical therapy. In fact, due to his ongoing symptoms, he underwent a Medical Evaluation Board proceeding in March 2008, which led immediately to a Physical Evaluation Board proceeding. Based on this proceeding, he was recommended for medical separation. He was discharged from service on this basis several months later in July 2008. After service, he sought treatment in October 2010, which resulted in a diagnosis of chronic left knee instability. He then continued undergoing private treatment, and the current diagnosis was given in March 2017. Thus, to summarize, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of chronic chondromalacia of the patella/femoral trochlea and chronic synovial impingement, status post arthroscopic knee surgery, and he was injured during service. His symptoms have been ongoing since that injury up to the present time. A VA examiner in September 2015 opined that the Veteran’s current diagnosis was not likely related to the in-service injury. The probative value of this opinion is limited, however, as the VA examiner reasoned, in part, that “[t]here is no documentation of treatment for the [Veteran’s] left knee in CPRS or VBMS post separation.” The VA examiner did not have the private treatment records (cited above) to review because they had not been obtained at that time. Also significant, the VA examiner did not account for the Veteran’s lay statements indicating ongoing symptoms since the initial injury. The VA examiner’s failure to consider the Veteran’s testimony, which is relevant evidence that he first noticed symptoms proximate in time to service, when formulating the opinion renders that opinion inadequate. See McKinney v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 15, 30 (2016); As such, the VA examiner’s opinion is not sufficiently probative to outweigh the favorable evidence of record. In fact, when reading the VA examiner’s opinion as a whole, it appears likely the examiner would have reached a favorable opinion if the private treatment records had been available. This appears likely due to the examiner having materially relied on a lack of such treatment when reaching the negative opinion. Thus, the VA examiner’s opinion can be taken as some evidence supporting the claim. See, e.g., Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 105-06 (2012) (A VA examination report “must be read as a whole” to determine the examiner’s rationale.) In light of the foregoing, after resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current left knee disorder and it is related to an injury during service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection is warranted for a left knee disorder, best characterized as chronic chondromalacia of the patella/femoral trochlea and chronic synovial impingement, status post arthroscopic surgery of the left knee. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Bosely, Counsel