Citation Nr: 18139314 Decision Date: 09/27/18 Archive Date: 09/27/18 DOCKET NO. 09-37 403A DATE: September 27, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with disc protrusion (back disability) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 2000 to January 2004. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2007 rating decision. In April 2016, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing via videoconference. A copy of the transcript of the hearing is of record. These matters were previously before the Board in June 2016 when they were remanded for additional development, specifically new examinations. Remanded Issues Further development is necessary to comply with the terms of the June 2016 Board remand. In Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the Board’s remand order. Moreover, the Court further held that the Board itself errs when it fails to ensure compliance with the terms of its remand. Id. In its June 2016 remand, the Board directed that the Veteran be scheduled for VA examinations to determine if the Veteran’s bilateral knee disabilities were etiologically related to active service, to include as secondary to his service-connected back disability. More importantly, the examiner was directed to reconcile his or her opinion regarding direct service connection with the lay statements of record, specifically the April 2016 hearing testimony, as well as the August 2007 and March 2008 positive nexus opinions from Dr. C.N.B., who noted that the Veteran had documented bilateral knee crepitus, patellar edema, and probable Baker’s cyst. In that regard, the Veteran underwent an October 2016 VA examination, in which the examiner gave negative nexus opinions with regard to service connection on a direct and secondary basis. However, the examiner only discussed the August 2007 positive nexus opinion and did not comment on the April 2016 hearing testimony or the March 2008 positive nexus opinion from Dr. C.N.B. As a result of these Stegall violations, further development is needed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a new knee examination. The examination should include any additional diagnostic studies deemed necessary. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner must indicate that the claims folder was reviewed. The examiner is asked to respond as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater likelihood) that the Veteran’s bilateral knee disabilities are related to his active service. The examiner is specifically requested to reconcile his or her opinion with the lay statements of record, the April 2016 hearing testimony, and the August 2007 and March 2008 positive nexus opinions from Dr. C. N. B, who noted that the Veteran had documented bilateral knee crepitus, patellar edema, and most likely a Baker’s cyst. The examiner is also asked to address whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater likelihood) that the Veteran’s current bilateral knee disabilities were caused or chronically aggravated by his service-connected degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine. A complete rationale must be provided for any opinions expressed. If the requested opinions cannot be made without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state   this and specifically explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Norwood, Associate Counsel