Citation Nr: 20032285 Decision Date: 05/07/20 Archive Date: 05/07/20 DOCKET NO. 12-19 630 DATE: May 7, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1981 to December 1992. The Veteran testified before the undersigned during a January 2017 hearing. This matter is on appeal from a February 2010 rating decision. The Board denied the claim for service connection for a left knee disability in February 2019. The Veteran appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In October 2019, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the Court vacated the Board’s denial and remanded the matter to the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. In the October 2019 JMPR, the parties agreed that the Board did not provide an explanation as to why the May 2018 VA examiner’s notation of a left knee strain diagnosed in 1997 did not constitute a current disability for compensation purposes. Additionally, since the examination, the Court has clarified that pain resulting in functional impairment can constitute a disability for VA purposes. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1365 (2018). The Board finds that remand is necessary for an addendum opinion to clarify whether the documented 1997 left knee strain is a current disability or whether the Veteran has a left knee condition that causes functional impairment that may be entitled to compensation. Further, in February 2020, the Veteran submitted a form requesting the Board remand the case to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for review of the additional evidence submitted for his appeal. Therefore, remand is necessary for AOJ initial consideration of the new evidence. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain updated VA treatment records. 2. Return the claims file to the May 2018 VA examiner, if available, or to an appropriate medical professional. The need for a physical examination or interview is left to the discretion of the medical professional offering the opinion. The examiner should provide the following: (a.) Does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of a left knee disability? To the extent that the Veteran does not have a diagnosable disability, the examiner should note whether the Veteran has demonstrated functional impairment, to include pain, in the left knee. In providing the opinion, the examiner should explain whether the notation of a diagnosed 1997 left knee strain on the May 2018 VA examination is a current disability. A current disability is defined as one diagnosed since the beginning of the claim (June 2009) and during its pendency, even if it has since resolved. (b.) If there is no underlying diagnosed pathology for the Veteran’s complaints, but there is demonstrated functional impairment due to pain, provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the condition was incurred in or is otherwise the result of the Veteran’s active service. (c.) For each currently diagnosed left knee disability, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that it was incurred in and/or caused during service, or is otherwise medically related to service? (d.) For each currently diagnosed left knee disability, is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that it was caused by and/or aggravated beyond its natural progression by the Veteran’s service-connected back condition. (e.) If a currently diagnosed left knee disability was aggravated, please state the baseline manifestation. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for all conclusions reached. If an opinion cannot be given without resorting to mere speculation than the VA examiner must state so and further provide a reason for such conclusion. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Kelly A. Gastoukian 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.