Citation Nr: 20041606 Decision Date: 06/18/20 Archive Date: 06/18/20 DOCKET NO. 14-43 978 DATE: June 18, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee condition, to include as secondary to a service-connected bilateral ankle sprain, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from April 1977 to April 1981. In May 2018, the Board remanded this matter to obtain a supplemental medical opinion as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral knee condition was aggravated by his service-connected bilateral ankle condition. In October 2019, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral knee condition (diagnosed as degenerative joint disease) was not aggravated beyond its natural progression by the service-connected condition; however, the only rationale provided for that opinion was that the service-connected ankle condition was not related to his degenerative joint disease of the bilateral knees and that a nexus had not been established. The Board finds this rationale is insufficient because the 2019 VA examiner merely explained that the two conditions were not related. The examiner did not discuss the Veteran’s contention that he has an altered gait from his bilateral ankle condition which aggravates his knees. Accordingly, the VA examiner’s opinion is inadequate, and a VA addendum opinion is necessary. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Forward the claims file to the October 2019 VA examiner for a supplemental opinion and rationale. The examiner should review the claims folder and opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater degree of probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral knee condition is aggravated by his service-connected bilateral ankle condition. The examiner must specifically address the Veteran’s contention that he has an altered gait from his bilateral ankles, which aggravates his knees, and explain the rationale for any opinions provided; merely stating the two conditions are not related is insufficient. If the examiner is unable to provide any opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should so state and provide an explanation as to the reason(s) therefor. If the VA examiner from 2019 is not available, please forward this request to another qualified examiner to comply with this request for an opinion. If deemed necessary by the examiner, a physical examination of the Veteran should be conducted. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Casula 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.