Citation Nr: 21003333 Decision Date: 01/21/21 Archive Date: 01/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-13 045 DATE: January 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left knee osteoarthritis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1963 to February 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board denied the Veteran’s claim in September 2019 and the Veteran appealed the matter to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In July 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). The JMR noted that the Board failed to adequately explain why it relied on the absence of evidence of an in-service injury than to the Veteran’s lay statements, and that the Board failed to consider whether service connection was warranted based on continuity of symptomatology. Before adjudicating the case on the merits, however, the Board finds that remand is required to obtain an additional medical opinion. 1. Entitlement to service connection for left knee osteoarthritis is remanded. The Veteran contends that while serving on active duty in Germany, he severely twisted his right ankle while dismounting from the back of a truck. See Mar. 2013 Correspondence. He further stated that he has experienced left leg pain since this event. Id. His wife has also stated that the Veteran has never recovered from this incident and has experienced pain on his left leg from the calf to the left buttock. See Mar. 2013 Lay Statement. In April 2019, the Veteran underwent a VA knee and lower leg examination, as directed by a June 2018 Board remand. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s left knee arthritis was less likely than not the result of the in-service right knee injury. The examiner supported the opinion by stating that there was no evidence of a chronic left knee condition in the Veteran’s service treatment records and that the Veteran’s left knee condition was diagnosed in 2012, years after his service. The examiner instead attributed the Veteran’s condition to the aging process but provided no rationale for this conclusion. The Board finds the April 2019 examination to be inadequate for adjudication purposes. The examiner failed to address both the Veteran’s and his wife’s contentions regarding the Veteran’s history of left leg pain in forming the opinion. The examiner also failed to provide rationale as to the opinion that the Veteran’s condition is a result of aging instead of the claimed in-service event. Accordingly, the claim must be remanded in order to obtain an adequate examination and opinion that addresses both the Veteran’s and his wife’s statements. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249 (2020); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to ascertain the nature and etiology of his left knee osteoarthritis disability. All indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner should elicit from the Veteran a full and detailed medical history regarding his left knee osteoarthritis disability and such history should be addressed. The examiner should opine whether it is at least likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s left knee osteoarthritis was incurred during his active duty service, or is otherwise related to service, including but not limited to an in-service event in which the Veteran suffered an injury after dismounting from the back of a truck. In providing this opinion, the examiner must also discuss both the Veteran’s and his wife’s lay statements, including the Veteran’s testimony in the March 2018 Board hearing. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history and that such reports must be considered. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Watkins, 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.