Citation Nr: 21003669 Decision Date: 01/22/21 Archive Date: 01/22/21 DOCKET NO. 13-31 115 DATE: January 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from January 1987 to September 1992. In December 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition for further development. Specifically, the Board instructed the regional office (RO) to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination pertaining to her claim. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the claim must be remanded. The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay caused by this remand, particularly as this matter has been the subject of two prior remands, but wishes to assure the Veteran that it is necessary for a full and fair adjudication of her claim. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. The Board finds that a new examination and etiological opinion is warranted for the Veteran’s claims. The Veteran contends her right knee condition is the result of jumping out of a truck during service. The Veteran appeared for a VA examination in January 2020, in which the examiner opined the Veteran’s right knee condition was less likely than not related to her service because she was unable to locate any right knee injury or complaint of knee pain during service. She concluded that there was no objective evidence of a chronic condition. An addendum opinion, provided by a different VA examiner, was associated with the Veteran’s claims file in January 2020. The examiner opined it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s right knee condition was related to service. In support of her opinion, she acknowledged the Veteran’s lay statements, as well as the buddy statements in support of the Veteran using crutches after an accident in 1988-1989 but found that there was no objective documentation of a chronic right knee condition that occurred while the Veteran was in service. On review, the Board finds both January 2020 VA opinions to be inadequate to support a decision in this matter. The first January 2020 opinion is inadequate due to that the fact that the examiner failed to address the Veteran’s lay statements concerning her in-service incurrence and based her negative opinion solely on the basis of a lack of medical records documenting a knee condition in service. Furthermore, the addendum January 2020 opinion failed to meaningfully address the competent and credible lay statements of record regarding the Veteran’s contentions regarding the onset of pain in her right knee. The Veteran is competent to report symptoms within the realm of her personal knowledge, such as knee pain. Her friends are also competent to report what they have observed. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). Here, the Veteran has provided credible statements asserting that she injured her right knee and was on crutches around 1988-1989. These lay statements constitute credible evidence in support of the Veteran’s claim that was effectively ignored by the VA examiners. Finally, neither examiner provided an etiology or any possible causes for the Veteran’s right knee condition, merely limiting their opinions to finding that the right knee condition was not related to service. As such, the Board is unable to adequately decide the Veteran’s claim. Accordingly, the Board finds that a remand is warranted for a new examination and opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (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 determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s right knee condition.  The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination.  Based on review of the record and conducting an examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following:  (a.) Obtain a detailed history of the Veteran’s right knee condition, to include any and all symptomology.  (b.) Determine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least a 50 percent probability) that the Veteran’s right knee condition had its onset in or is related to service, to include an injury from jumping off a truck.  The examiner must specifically discuss: • The Veteran’s credible April 2017 hearing testimony, including that she injured her right knee from jumping out of a truck; • Two June 2017 buddy statements pertaining to the Veteran’s being on crutches after an accident in 1988-1989. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that her reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions.  The Board recognizes the practical difficulties of scheduling an examination in view of the COVID-19 epidemic and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran an opportunity for an examination.  If an in-person examination cannot be provided, consider other appropriate alternatives, such as a telehealth examination.  The examiner must provide the rationale for all proffered opinions.  If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why.  If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so.  If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. L. Park, 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.