Citation Nr: 20033079 Decision Date: 05/12/20 Archive Date: 05/12/20 DOCKET NO. 16-53 754A DATE: May 12, 2020 ORDER The issue of service connection for lateral collateral ligament sprain, left ankle is dismissed. The issue of service connection for lateral collateral ligament sprain, right ankle is dismissed. Service connection for left knee chondromalacia is granted. Service connection for right knee chondromalacia is granted. REMANDED The issue of service connection for a low back disability is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On February 5, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant that a withdrawal is requested for the issue of service connection for lateral collateral ligament sprain, left ankle. 2. On February 5, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant that a withdrawal is requested for the issue of service connection for lateral collateral ligament sprain, right ankle. 3. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his left knee chondromalacia is at least as likely as not related to service. 4. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his right knee chondromalacia is at least as likely as not related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of service connection for lateral collateral ligament sprain, left ankle by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the issue of service connection for lateral collateral ligament sprain, right ankle by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 3. The criteria for service connection for left knee chondromalacia are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 4. The criteria for service connection for right knee chondromalacia are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 1985 to March 1988. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The issues of service connection for lateral collateral ligament sprains of the left and right ankles have been withdrawn. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. Id. In the present case, the appellant through his authorized representative, has withdrawn these issues, and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the issues, and they are dismissed. Service connection for right and left knee chondromalacia is granted. The Veteran contends that his right and left knee disabilities began during service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has current knee disabilities that are related to in-service injuries sustained in 1986. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service treatment records reflect that the Veteran sustained a right knee injury in February 1986, and a left knee injury in April 1986. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disabilities are related to service. On this question there are probative opinions in favor of and against the claim. The evidence against the claim includes an August VA examination report in which the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s knee disabilities were related to service. He stated that the service treatment records did not document objective findings consistent with a high energy injury to the soft tissue or osseous structure, such as fracture, internal derangement, or dislocation. He stated that in the absence of such findings, a post-traumatic or chronic inflammatory process is less likely than not. The evidence in favor of the claim includes an April 2020 medical opinion provided by his VA treating physician. He stated that he has treated the Veteran for 5 years and that the Veteran’s knee disabilities are more likely than not related to service. He noted that the Veteran sustained injuries to both knees in service and that he has continued to have pain and limitations since that time. He also stated that his chronic compensation for his left knee has caused a worsening of right knee pain. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to be at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s current right and left knee chondromalacia are related to service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for right and left knee chondromalacia is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND The issue of service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Evidence indicates that there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. At the Veteran’s February 2020 Board hearing, he testified that he was treated at a VA Medical Center in Miami. The August 2014 rating decision reflects that there were “[n]o pertinent VA Healthcare records from VAMC available.” The September 2016 statement of the case reflects that the RO received medical evidence from the Miami VA Medical Center dated September 2014 to September 2016; however, these records do not appear in the claims file. Moreover, the Veteran also testified that he underwent left knee surgery in 2018. Consequently, there should be additional VA treatment records beyond 2016. The RO should obtain all treatment records from the VA Medical Center in Miami. Additionally, the Veteran testified that he treated with a private chiropractor. The claims file contains treatment reports from a couple of private physicians (Dr. P.C. and Dr. J.J.); however, neither of these are chiropractors, and the records fail to reflect treatment of the Veteran’s back. The RO should send the Veteran a VA Form 21-4142 so that the Veteran can identify the chiropractor and so that the VA can obtain these records. Finally with regards to records, the Veteran submitted a March 2020 correspndence from the Miami Institute for Joint Reconstruction; however, only the first line of the correspondence appears to have been submitted. The author appears to state that he/she has treated the Veteran for two years. Not only should the remainder of the correspondence be added to the record, but the treatment records from the Miami Institute for Joint Reconstruction should be incorporated into the record as well. The RO should send the Veteran a VA Form 21-4142 so that the VA can obtain these records. Additionally, because it appears that the nexus opinions in this case (a VA opinion from August 2014, and an opinion from the Veteran’s VA doctor) have been provided while there were treatment records still outstanding, the Board finds that a new VA examination is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all the Veteran’s VA treatment records from the VA Medical Center in Miami. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for the chiropractor from whom he received treatment for his back. Attempt to retrieve the treatment records from the chiropractor. 3. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for the Miami Institute for Joint Reconstruction. Attempt to retrieve the treatment records from that facility. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any disability of the low back. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any low back disability is related to an in-service injury or disease. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report injuries and symptoms and that his reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinion. JAMES L. MARCH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Prem, 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.