Citation Nr: 18139167
Decision Date: 09/26/18	Archive Date: 09/26/18

DOCKET NO. 16-22 741
DATE:	September 26, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral patellar chondromalacia is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
The evidence of record is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral patellar chondromalacia, is related to service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for service connection for bilateral patellar chondromalacia have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Veteran served on active duty from February 1994 to February 1998.  This matter is on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision.
Service Connection
Service connection will be granted if the Veteran has a disability resulting from personal injury or disease incurred in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease incurred in the line of duty during active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.
To establish service connection, the evidence must show (1) a present disability, (2) an 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, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee condition, to include patellar chondromalacia
The Veteran seeks service connection for a bilateral knee condition, to include patellar chondromalacia.  The record demonstrates that the Veteran currently has complaints of bilateral knee pain; 2013 VA treatment records and a January 2014 private physician letter note a diagnosis of generalized chondromalacia.
The Veteran has credibly stated that, while he was in service, he sustained a fall in which he landed directly on both knees.  See, e.g., May 2016 substantive appeal.  In support of this contention, he provided a corroborating witness lay statement in June 2013.
While service treatment records do not reflect treatment for a bilateral knee condition, the Board finds the Veteran’s reports credible and consistent with the evidence of record and the Veteran’s service duties.
The dispositive issue on appeal concerns whether there is a causal relationship between the Veteran’s bilateral knee disability and his in-service injury.
The record includes opinions for and against the claim.  
In January 2014, the Veteran’s private physician related the Veteran’s bilateral knee condition to service.  In support of this opinion, the examiner noted the Veteran sustained a fall in service and has continued to complain of pain, stiffness, instability, and swelling that is worsened by prolonged sitting and overuse.  The physician further noted significant physical exam findings of bilateral pain. 
However, in December 2014, a VA physician found the Veteran’s current knee was not likely due to service.  The examiner noted a lack of duty restrictions, as well as a lack of medical evaluations for knee pain, while the Veteran was in service.  The examiner also noted some inconsistencies in the medical record concerning the Vs complaints of bilateral knee issues.
The January 2014 and December 2014 opinions are rendered by equally qualified professionals with no compelling reason to discount the basis for either opinion.
In sum, based on the totality of the evidence and affording the Veteran the benefit of all reasonable doubt, the Board finds that the Veteran’s current bilateral knee disability is causally related to his duties performed while in service.  See Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014) (“By requiring only an ‘approximate balance of positive and negative evidence’..., the nation, ‘in recognition of our debt to our veterans,’ has ‘taken upon itself the risk of error’ in awarding... benefits”).  
 
ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	N. Rasool