Citation Nr: 20031850 Decision Date: 05/06/20 Archive Date: 05/06/20 DOCKET NO. 17-24 039 DATE: May 6, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a heart condition is remanded. Entitlement to compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a low back condition is remanded. Entitlement to compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for boils is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1976 to June 1977. These matters come to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from August 2014 and March 2018 rating decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In an October 2019 decision, the Board found that new and material evidence had been received regarding the issues of entitlement to service connection for a left and right knee condition. The issues were reopened and remanded for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left and right knee condition The Veteran contends that he suffers from a left and right knee condition as a result of his service. Specifically, the Veteran contends that she first experienced knee problems during her active service. The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in May 2016 where the examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by her service. The examiner reasoned that although the Veteran’s STRs document swelling, the Veteran’s separation examination was normal, and X-ray studies done in 1976 showed no abnormality. The examiner further reasoned that the Veteran did not have a documented knee injury in service. In the October 2019 remand, the Board found that the May 2016 examination was inadequate because the VA examiner did not address the Veteran’s complaints of continuity of pain since service. Additionally, the examiner did not discuss the additional diagnoses of chondromalacia and oblique tear of the body of the medial meniscus and tendinitis. The Board also directed the RO associate the Veteran’s completely military personnel records with her claims file. Subsequently, the Veteran was provided with a VA examination in December 2019 where the VA examiner noted a diagnosis of bilateral degenerative arthritis of the knees and opined that the condition was less likely than not incurred in service. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s service treatment records showed she had swelling, effusion, and crepitus while in service, which she found to indicate acute pain or a sprain. The examiner added that the Veteran had an exam done in May 1977 before discharge which was normal. X-ray studies in 1976 showed no abnormality. X-ray studies done in 2013 showed DJD of the bilateral knees. The examiner concluded that it is likely that the Veteran’s current arthritis is secondary to daily wear and tear and a natural process of aging. As the December 2019 VA examiner did not discuss the Veteran’s complaints of continuity of pain since service or her diagnoses of chondromalacia and oblique tear of the body of the medial meniscus and tendinitis, the Board find that the December 2019 VA examination report does not comply with the directives of the October 2019 Board remand. Additionally, the Board notes that the evidence of record does not show that the RO attempted to obtain the Veteran’s military personnel records, as directed by the October 2019 Board remand. Compliance with a remand is not discretionary, and failure to comply with the terms of a remand necessitates remand for corrective action. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart condition and entitlement to compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for a lower back condition, right knee condition, and boils The Veteran contends that she suffers from a heart condition as a result of her service. The Veteran also contends that her treatment at the Chattanooga VA outpatient clinic from October 2016 to November 2017 caused her to suffer from a lower back condition, right knee condition, and boils. See December 2017 correspondence. Upon a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records from the Chattanooga VA clinic for the time period indicated by the Veteran above. Any VA treatment records are within VA’s constructive possession, and are considered potentially relevant to the issues on appeal. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain them. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran has indicated that has been awarded Supplemental Security Income from the Social Security Administration (SSA). See October 2016 VA treatment records. However, the claims file does not contain the SSA disability determination or the medical records upon which that determination was based. Nor does it appear that an attempt was made to obtain them. VA has a duty to obtain SSA records when they may be relevant to a claim. The possibility that SSA records could contain evidence relevant to the Veteran’s claims cannot be foreclosed absent a review of those records. Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 188 (2002). Therefore, the Board finds that an attempt should be made to obtain any available SSA records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records from the Chattanooga VA clinic for the period from October 2016 to November 2017. 2. Obtain a copy of any medical records upon which the award or denial of SSA benefits was determined. If the search for such records has negative results, the claims file must be properly documented as to the unavailability of those records. 3. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the following: a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the diagnosed bilateral knee conditions had their onset during active service, or within one year of the Veteran’s separation from active service, or is otherwise related to service? The examiner is asked to specifically address the Veteran’s contention that she first experienced knee problems in service which has continued thereafter. The examiner is also asked to specifically discuss the post-service diagnoses of arthritis, chondromalacia, and oblique tear of the body of the medial meniscus and tendonitis. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinion. The examiner should accept the Veteran's account of symptoms as true unless there is a medical reason to doubt its veracity. In such a case, the examiner should explain why the Veteran's recollection is inconsistent with principles of medical science and/or the evidence in this case. All findings and conclusions should be supported with a complete rationale which reflects the examiner’s consideration and analysis of both the medical and lay evidence of record. If it is not possible to provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the reason that is so should explained, indicating whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided or whether the inability to provide an opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Morrad, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.