Citation Nr: 18161002 Decision Date: 12/28/18 Archive Date: 12/28/18 DOCKET NO. 10-09 013 DATE: December 28, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1979 to July 1989 and December 2003 to April 2005. The Veteran, through his representative, suggests that his current right knee and ankle injuries may be caused, or aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. Specifically, he has argued that the right knee and ankle disabilities are secondary to the lumbar spine disability, PTSD, and/ or radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities. While opinions as to whether the right knee and ankle disabilities were caused or aggravated by the service-connected lumbar spine and PTSD disabilities have been obtained, a secondary service connection opinion regarding whether the Veteran’s right knee and ankle disabilities were caused or aggravated by his service-connected radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities has not. As such, a remand is required to obtain these necessary opinions prior to adjudication of the claims. Accordingly, the matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the Veteran’s claims file to the examiner who conducted the February 2018 and VA knee and lower leg conditions examination so a supplemental opinion may be provided. If that examiner is no longer available, provide the Veteran’s claims file to a similarly qualified clinician. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examiner must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. A new examination is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner must opine as to the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s right knee disability was proximately due to or the result of his service-connected radiculopathy of the lower extremities. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that disability was aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected radiculopathy of the lower extremities. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. 2. Return the Veteran’s claims file to the examiner who conducted the February 2018 and VA ankle conditions examination so a supplemental opinion may be provided. If that examiner is no longer available, provide the Veteran’s claims file to a similarly qualified clinician. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examiner must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. A new examination is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner must opine as to the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s right ankle disability was proximately due to or the result of his service-connected radiculopathy of the lower extremities. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that right ankle disability was aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected radiculopathy of the lower extremities. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. 3. After all completed development, the AOJ should then readjudicate the claim. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. T. BERRY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Riordan, Associate Counsel