Citation Nr: 18158754
Decision Date: 12/18/18	Archive Date: 12/17/18

DOCKET NO. 11-16 488
DATE:	December 18, 2018
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from December 1975 to December 1979. 
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2010 decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio, which denied the Veteran’s claim. 
In September 2017, the Veteran and his spouse, B. M., testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned.  A copy of the transcript is of record.
The issue was previously before the Board in January 2018 and was remanded for further development.
1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded.
In its January 2018 remand, the Board requested an etiology opinion for the Veteran’s right knee disability.  An examination was conducted in March 2018 and an opinion was provided, but it employed speculative language without an adequate explanation as to why speculation was required.  The March 2018 opinion is therefore inadequate and an addendum opinion is needed.  See Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2010).
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Provide the Veteran’s claims file to a qualified clinician so a supplemental opinion may be provided for the Veteran’s right knee disability.  The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review.  A new examination is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner.  
The clinician should provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s right knee disability is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or degree of probability) had its onset in service, or is otherwise related to service.  
Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the clinician’s attention is called to the following: 
a.	The Veteran’s September 2017 hearing testimony where he states that he believed his knee disability is due to wear and tear from walking the flight line during his active service, and that he has had persistent symptoms since then.
b.	The March 2018 VA examination and opinion.
The clinician must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report.  
If any of the above opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the clinician must provide an explanation for this conclusion.  
2. Readjudicate the claim.  If any decision is unfavorable to the Veteran, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response.  Then, return the case to the Board.


 
D. Martz Ames
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	N. Stevens, Associate Counsel