Citation Nr: 20056167 Decision Date: 08/25/20 Archive Date: 08/25/20 DOCKET NO. 15-06 684A DATE: August 25, 2020 REMANDED The issue of service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded. The issue of service connection for left foot drop is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the U.S. Army from November 1981 to November 1984. In November 2018, the Veteran was afforded a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. 1. The issue of service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded. 2. The issue of service connection for left foot drop is remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RO ADJUDICATOR: In June 2019, the Board remanded the appeal to verify the Veteran’s complete periods of service; to obtain any outstanding service treatment records (STRs) and service personnel records (SPRs); to attempt to obtain worker’s compensation records, and to attempt to obtain private treatment records. The RO has not complied. Although the RO was directed to complete all of those actions before obtaining a new VA medical opinion, it afforded the Veteran new VA examinations and obtained opinions in December 2019. These opinions are of no probative value without a complete record. Because the RO did not comply with the Board remand directives, remand is necessary to again attempt to complete all of the actions requested in the June 2019 Board Remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 2. Contact the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) and/or the appropriate service entity and request that it (1) verify the Veteran’s complete periods of active service, active duty, active duty for training, and inactive duty for training and (2) forward all available STRs and SPRs not already of record associated with such duty for incorporation into the record. Verification of service requires a complete list of the type of service the Veteran had on each date during which he was in service. 3. Contact the appropriate agency to obtain workers’ compensation records associated with a left knee and/or left foot injury and associate the records with the Veteran’s file. 4. Advise the Veteran that he may submit any additional medical and non-medical evidence relating to his claimed left knee and left foot disorders that is not already in VA’s possession. Specifically request authorization to obtain: *Records associated with left total knee replacement. *Records from Dr. A. *Records from S.L. 5. Associate with the record any VA clinical documentation not already of record pertaining to the treatment of the Veteran for left knee and/or left foot disorders. 6. AFTER COMPLETING ALL OF THE ABOVE DIRECTED DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATING THE RECORDS WITH THE FILE, return the file to the VA examiner who conducted the December 2019 VA medical examination. If the examiner is not available, have the file reviewed by a similarly qualified examiner. If necessary to respond to the inquiries below, schedule the Veteran for a VA knee and lower leg condition examination and a VA foot disorders examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of a left disorder and left foot drop. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address the following: (a.) Whether a left knee disorder was caused by any in-service event, injury, disease, or disorder, or in any way originated during service. (b.) Whether a left foot drop was caused by any in service event, injury, disease, or disorder, or in any way originated during service. (c.) Whether left knee arthritis manifested to a compensable degree within one year of service separation. (d.) Whether left foot drop was caused by a left knee disorder. (e.) Whether left foot drop was aggravated by a left knee disorder. (f.) Whether a left knee disorder was caused by the Veteran’s service-connected right knee total arthroplasty. (g.) Whether a left knee disorder was aggravated by the Veteran’s service-connected right knee total arthroplasty. (h.) Whether left foot drop was caused by the Veteran’s service-connected right knee total arthroplasty. (i.) Whether left foot drop was aggravated by the Veteran’s service-connected right knee total arthroplasty. 7. IN ADDITION TO ANY RECORDS ADDED TO THE FILE AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE DIRECTED DEVELOPMENT, the examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *March and April 1984 STRs indicating treatment for left knee symptoms. VBMS Entry 9/9/2013, p. 10-11. *June and July 1984 STRs indicating knee complaints and stating that he had had symptoms since basic training and diagnosing chronic bilateral knee pain and rule-out old meniscus tear. VBMS Entry 9/9/2013, p. 55-57. *August 1984 physical examination for service separation and report of medical history which do not indicate any left lower extremity complaints or disorders. VBMS Entry 9/9/2013, p. 10-13. *May 1988 Reserve examination and report of medical history where the Veteran was normal but the Veteran indicated that he had a “trick” or locked knee. VBMS Entry 9/9/2013, p. 6-9. *October 2011 private treatment record stating that the Veteran had an ACL tear, PCL buckling, degenerative tearing, patellofemoral arthrosis, capsulitis, bursitis, and chondromalacia. VBMS Entry 7/29/2014. *March 2014 VA examination report stating that the Veteran had had a left total knee arthroplasty after a work-related injury and that he developed foot drop as a result of the injury. *April 2014 notice of disagreement (NOD) where the Veteran reported that he had had knee complaints before the work-related injury and that that injury resulted from knee symptoms that began in service. *July 2014 VA treatment record indicating that the Veteran had a left total knee arthroplasty in 2012 and that his knee pain begun after an in-service fall in the 1980s. The record states that left foot drop began in 2011. VBMS Entry 9/20/2016, p. 14. *March 2015 statement from the Veteran where he described a history of left knee symptoms and discussed which activities in service first caused his symptoms. *November 2017 VA treatment record indicating that the Veteran was treated for left knee symptoms in the emergency medical department after a fall. VBMS Entry 10/7/2019, p. 1. *October 2018 private treatment record indicating that the Veteran had a difficult time walking, standing, and using stairs as a result of the right knee symptoms. VBMS Entry 12/3/2019, p. 2. *November 2018 Board hearing where the Veteran testified about an in-service left knee injury and his history of symptoms. *January 2019 private medical opinion stating that the Veteran was treated for a left knee injury in April to July 1984 in service and that “it appears in my opinion that there is a greater than fifty percent likelihood that injuries incurred while in military service led to pain and damages which were treated with surgery on the [Veteran’s] left knee.” No further rationale was provided. *February 2019 private treatment record indicating that the Veteran’s right knee had given way. VBMS Entry 12/3/2019, p. 8. *October 2019 letter from a private orthopedist stating that the Veteran had a failed right knee arthroplasty and needed corrective surgery. *December 2019 statement from the Veteran about the severity of his right knee, including reporting a fall and using a walker or crutch to walk. *December 2019 statement from the Veteran about the history of his left knee disorder and stating that his symptoms originated during service. 8. Readjudicate the issues on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. E. Miller, 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.