Citation Nr: 21003042 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 15-16 314 DATE: January 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from February 1974 to February 1977. In October 2019, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board remanded the Veteran’s claims in December 2019. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. The Board remanded the low back claim in December 2019 for an addendum opinion that addressed the lay evidence of an in-service injury. The Veteran was afforded a VA contract examination and opinion in February 2020. VA-QTC Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Conditions examination, February 2020. The examiner noted the lay evidence but concluded that his current low back disability was not related to service because there was no documented injury in service. However, the mere fact that an appellant’s assertions are not supported by contemporaneous clinical evidence does not render them inherently incredible. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence”); see also Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The examiner must provide an opinion based on the lay evidence of an in-service low back injury and continuous low back pain since that time. In light of the above deficiencies, the Board finds that the February 2020 VA-QTC opinion is inadequate, and the claim must be remanded for a new opinion that appropriately considers the lay evidence. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. The Board remanded the left knee claim in December 2019 for an addendum opinion that addressed the lay evidence of an in-service injury. The Veteran was afforded a VA contract examination and opinion in February 2020. VA-QTC Knee and Lower Leg Conditions examination, February 2020. The examiner noted the lay evidence but concluded that his current left knee disability was not related to service because there was no documented injury in service. However, the mere fact that an appellant’s assertions are not supported by contemporaneous clinical evidence does not render them inherently incredible. Buchanan, supra; see also Stegall, supra. The examiner must provide an opinion based on the lay evidence of an in-service left knee injury and continuous left knee pain since that time. In light of the above deficiencies, the Board finds that the February 2020 VA-QTC opinion is inadequate, and the claim must be remanded for a new opinion that appropriately considers the lay evidence. See Barr, supra. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. The Board remanded the right knee claim in December 2019 for an addendum opinion that addressed the lay evidence of an in-service injury. The Veteran was afforded a VA contract examination and opinion in February 2020. VA-QTC Knee and Lower Leg Conditions examination, February 2020. The examiner noted the lay evidence but concluded that his current right knee disability was not related to service because there was no documented injury in service. However, the mere fact that an appellant’s assertions are not supported by contemporaneous clinical evidence does not render them inherently incredible. Buchanan, supra; see also Stegall, supra. The examiner must provide an opinion based on the lay evidence of an in-service right knee injury and continuous right knee pain since that time. In light of the above deficiencies, the Board finds that the February 2020 VA-QTC opinion is inadequate, and the claim must be remanded for a new opinion that appropriately considers the lay evidence. See Barr, supra. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Send the Veteran’s claims file to an appropriate examiner to provide addendum opinions regarding the nature and etiology of his low back, left knee, and right knee disabilities. The Veteran may be recalled for examination if deemed necessary. Note that the Board recognizes the potential practical difficulties in scheduling an examination in light of the COVID-19 epidemic and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran any warranted examination. The examiner must opine whether any of the Veteran’s diagnosed low back or left or right knee disorders at least as likely as not began in or are related to his military service, including the injuries sustained due to a fall during a ship collision while in service in 1975. The examiner MUST address: (a.) the lay statements from the Veteran and his brother describing the nature of the Veteran’s in-service low back and bilateral knee injuries during the 1975 ship collision, and (b.) the lay statements from the Veteran and his brother indicating that he has experienced low back and bilateral knee pain since service. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s description of the in-service low back and bilateral knee injuries to be credible. The term “at least as likely as not” does not mean “within the realm of medical possibility.” Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of the conclusion (e.g., etiology) as it is to find against the conclusion. 2. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL. IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. (Continued on the next page) YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moore, 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.