Citation Nr: 20034484 Decision Date: 05/18/20 Archive Date: 05/18/20 DOCKET NO. 16-15 495 DATE: May 18, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has not had a right knee disability at any time during the appeal period. 2. The Veteran has not had a left knee disability at any time during the appeal period. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria to establish service connection for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 2. The criteria to establish service connection for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1969 to March 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In September 2018, the Board reopened the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a left knee strain and a right knee strain and remanded the case for additional development. Service connection for a bilateral knee disability The Veteran contends that he developed bilateral knee disabilities as the result of his military service. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also be granted for any disability diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Generally, to establish service connection, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Board notes that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation; without a current disability, service connection is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §1110; see also Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). A December 2015 VA examination report showed diagnoses of knee strain in 1969; however, current x-rays were normal and only pain was noted. The examiner further noted that while the Veteran sustained a bilateral knee injury during service there was no documentation of continued care and treatment of the initial knee injury. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s pain impacted his functional impairment as a mechanic, of which he lost 0-1 week a year of work. It was noted that he was unable to continue work as a mechanic as he was unable to kneel, bend, and stoop due to his knee condition. In the September 2018 decision, the Board remanded the case to obtain a new VA examination and medical opinion to determine if there were any current bilateral knee disabilities and if any disabilities were related to service. Subsequently, a July 2019 VA examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined that, while he experienced subjective symptoms of pain in his knees, there was no pain on examination and no diagnosis of right or left knee disabilities. The examiner specifically indicated that there was no functional impairment as a result of the Veteran’s knee problems. Overall, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran has a current bilateral knee disability. While the 2015 examiner noted a diagnosis in 1969, there is no indication of a current knee disability. In reaching this conclusion, the Board is cognizant of the Federal Circuit’s recent holding in Saunders v. Wilkie that where pain causes functional impairment, a disability for VA compensation purposes exists, even if there is no underlying diagnosis. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, in its decision, the Federal Circuit clarified, “[w]e do not hold that a veteran could demonstrate service connection simply by asserting subjective pain to establish a disability. To establish the presence of a disability, a veteran will need to show that pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity.” Here, while the Veteran indicated functional impairment in 2015, this was specifically denied on the most recent examination. Moreover, the most recent examination report reflected that despite the Veteran’s complaints of pain, there was no pain on evaluation. The Board finds the 2019 examination report to be the most probative evidence as it is the most contemporaneous, was rendered specifically due to the inadequacies of the 2015 evaluation, and is consistent with other evidence of record. The Board also acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that he has a bilateral knee disability. However, the Veteran has not been shown to have the medical training and knowledge required to render a medical diagnosis. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331, 1336-37. Therefore, his assertions are not considered competent medical evidence and do not weigh against the probative value of the medical evidence. As noted above, the threshold requirement for service connection is competent medical evidence of the existence of the claimed disability at some point during the course of the appeal or in proximity to the claim. While the Veteran has complained of knee pain, a subjective complaint of pain, alone, is not a “disability” for VA purposes. Ultimately, the most probative evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has had a bilateral knee disability at any point during the period on appeal. Therefore, his claim must be denied. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Owaiian Jones, Law Clerk 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.