Citation Nr: 21002671 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 15-02 415 DATE: January 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right leg fracture due to a motor vehicle accident (MVA), as secondary to a service-connected left knee disability, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1968 to June 1970. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a November 2011 rating decision which denied service connection for fracture of the right leg secondary to a motor vehicle accident (MVA). In June 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a Board videoconference hearing. A copy of the transcript is of record. In August 2018, the Board remanded the matter for further development, to include obtaining a VA examination and medical opinion.   Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right leg fracture due to a motor vehicle accident (MVA), as secondary to a service-connected left knee disability, is remanded. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right leg disability at this time. While an October 2019 VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s right leg disability was secondary to his service-connected left knee disability, the examiner’s opinion appears to be based, in part, on the absence of an accident report pertaining to the February 1973 MVA. Additionally, while the examiner indicated that there were no medical records to show the severity of the Veteran’s left knee disability at the time of the February 1973 MVA, it is not clear whether the examiner considered whether the Veteran’s reports of his knee locking up are consistent with the progression of his left knee disability, to include in-service complaints of left knee pain and the 1976 left knee meniscectomy. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is warranted so that additional development can be undertaken, to include obtaining the accident report from the February 1973 MVA and a new VA medical opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s right leg disability. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Attempt to obtain the accident report pertaining to the 1973 motor vehicle accident (MVA) in which the Veteran sustained injuries to his right leg. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s right leg disability. The examiner must review the claims file. An in-person examination is not necessary unless deemed so by the examiner.   The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is the Veteran’s right leg disability due to injuries sustained during a February 1973 MVA at least as likely as not proximately due to his service-connected left knee disability, to include the Veteran’s lay statements that he was unable to move out of the way of an oncoming vehicle due to his left knee locking up? If the Veteran’s right leg disability is not proximately due to his service-connected left knee disability, is the Veteran’s right leg disability at least as likely as not aggravated, i.e., worsened beyond its natural progression, by his left knee disability? In providing the requested opinions, consider the Veteran’s description of his in-service left knee injury and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms, to include the Veteran’s lay statements that his left knee locked up in February 1973, 1976 medical records showing a left knee meniscectomy, and the July 2013 affidavit of the paramedic who worked the February 1973 MVA. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran’s reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the progression of his left knee disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran’s reports about his left knee symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed left knee disability is known to develop or are the Veteran’s reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? 3. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Owen, 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.