Citation Nr: 21001230 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-59 986 DATE: January 7, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a right knee disability is granted. Service connection for a left knee disability is granted. Service connection for a lumbar spine disability is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran began experiencing symptoms of his right knee disability while in service, and he has continued to experience them since separating from service. 2. The Veteran began experiencing symptoms of his left knee disability while in service, and he has continued to experience them since separating from service. 3. The Veteran began experiencing symptoms of his lumbar spine disability while in service, and he has continued to experience them since separating from service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a right knee disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 3. The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from March 1986 to July 1986 and from August 2004 to October 2005. In March 2020, the Veteran appeared and provided testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). Service Connection—Bilateral Knees and Lumbar Spine Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, service connection can also be established through application of a statutory presumption for chronic diseases, like arthritis, when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If a chronic disease is not manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation of service, then, generally, a showing of “continuity of symptoms” after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Further, a layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The Veteran’s VA treatment records show that he has been diagnosed with arthritis of both knees [See November 2014 VA right and left knee imaging results] and of his lumbar spine [See March 2016 VA lumbosacral spine imaging results]. Further, the Veteran confirmed during his March 2020 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) hearing that he had been diagnosed with bilateral knee and lumbar spine arthritis. As such, the current disability prongs for these claims have been met. Accordingly, the remaining question in this case is whether a causal relationship, or nexus, exists between the Veteran’s bilateral knee and lumbar spine disabilities and his active service, or whether these disorders onset therein. In this regard, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to report the onset and history of his bilateral knee and lumbar spine pain, which are symptoms of his respective arthritis conditions. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 470. Specifically, the Veteran testified before the Board in March 2020 that his bilateral knee and lumbar spine symptoms began after he fell backwards out of a truck in service. His bilateral knee pain started almost immediately, and his back pain onset later. His knee and back problems continued and worsened since service. When questioned by the undersigned VLJ at the hearing, the Veteran confirmed that his testimony was that his low back and knee problems existed since his fall in service. He also reported this same onset and history of symptoms in his knees and lower back in his December 2016 formal appeal to the Board. Importantly, the Veteran has not made any statements to the contrary. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran’s competent statements about the onset of his symptoms of his bilateral knee and lumbar spine disabilities to be credible, as he has consistently reported the same onset as occurring in service. The Regional Office (RO) continued to deny these claims, stating that there was no evidence of current diagnosed disabilities. The RO was clearly incorrect, as VA treatment records which were listed as having been reviewed by the RO at the time of the October 2016 statement of the case contained the current diagnoses previously detailed herein. Regardless, no VA examinations were afforded for these conditions, as the RO mistakenly found that the conditions were not currently diagnosed. Further, there are no medical opinions of record which either link, or decline to link, the Veteran’s bilateral knee and lumbar spine disabilities to his active service. Thus, the Veteran’s lay reports regarding the onset and history of his knee and lumbar spine disabilities’ symptoms are the only competent and credible evidence of record on this issue—and are not contradicted by any other probative evidence in the claims file. In light of the above, the Board finds the Veteran’s competent, credible reports of his bilateral knee and lumbar spine disabilities’ symptoms having onset in active service to be the most probative evidence in this case. Thus, the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran’s bilateral knee and lumbar spine disabilities onset in service and have continued since then. Service connection for a right knee disability, a left knee disability, and a lumbar spine disability are warranted, as they are current disabilities which onset during active service. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Davidoski, Associate 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.