Citation Nr: 21005208 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 07-16 599 DATE: January 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by left knee pain is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by right knee pain is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by lower abdominal pain is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1973 to October 1979. At a May 2010 Travel Board hearing, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the proceeding has been associated with the claims file. These issues (among others) were previously denied by the Board in August 2010. The Veteran appealed and in a March 2012 memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) vacated the Board’s decision. The abdominal pain claim was denied again by the Board in April 2013, which decision was vacated pursuant to a May 2014 Joint Motion for Partial Remand. The knee disability claims were remanded by the Board in April 2013, December 2013, and, together with the abdominal pain claim, in October 2014. In June 2019, the Board denied the knee disability claims and remanded the abdominal pain claim once again. Pursuant to a December 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR), the Court vacated the June 2019 decision regarding the bilateral knee claims. Additionally, the development for the lower abdominal claim was completed by the RO. As such, the bilateral knee and lower abdominal claims have once again returned to the Board for adjudication. 1. Bilateral Knees The terms of the JMR found that a February 2006 response to a request for treatment records from Elmendorf Air Force Base Hospital should have triggered an internal VA search for the sought after records, since the response indicated the sought after records had already been loaned to VA. Apparently, the parties to the JMR desire documentation dated after February 2006, that VA conducted an internal search for the sought after records, before determining the records are not available. This should be accomplished as set out below. Additionally, should any such records be associated with the claims file, the Veteran should be scheduled for a new VA examination to consider them in rendering an etiology opinion. 2. Lower Abdominal Pain The Board previously remanded the Veteran’s abdominal pain claim for an opinion addressing the Veteran’s post service umbilical hernia in the context of his service connection claim. The Veteran was provided with a new VA examination in February 2019 with an addendum opinion in September 2020. This opinion did not address the umbilical hernia question, which was the original reason for seeking the opinion. Accordingly, another opinion is needed in which the etiology of the previously identified hernias is discussed. A complete rationale for any opinions rendered must be provided. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and ask him to provide the necessary release for any additional relevant private treatment records he wishes to be considered in connection with the appeal, which records should be sought, (or he may submit such records himself). 2. Obtain relevant outstanding VA treatment records to include records since the last supplemental statement of the case. 3. The RO should document an internal search for any records of the Veteran’s treatment at Elmendorf Air Force Base Hospital. The Veteran should be notified of the results of that search, and any records located should be associated with the Veteran’s file. 4. If any records from Elmendorf Air Force Base Hospital are located, schedule the Veteran for a new VA examination for his bilateral knees, which should identify any current disability; and address whether any disability had its onset in service, or is otherwise related to service. In addressing this, the examiner should include discussion of the Veteran’s lay statements and contentions regarding the June 1975 parachute accident and wear and tear caused by regular in-service duties (i.e., carrying a heavy rucksack, prolonged running and walking, numerous parachute jump landings, etc.) and his statements reporting the onset of symptomology. Any discussion of wear and tear as might occur in service, should also include discussion of wear and tear as might occur during periods when the Veteran was not in service, and how any wear and tear might be related to aging or be distinct from aging. The conclusions expressed should be fully explained. 5. The Veteran’s claims file should be provided to an appropriately qualified person for an opinion addressing whether the Veteran’s lower abdominal pain, including as may have been related to his previously diagnosed umbilical hernia in the 2004 to 2013 timeframe, had its onset during active service or is otherwise related to active service. The examiner is specifically asked to address the Veteran’s lay statements and contentions regarding the June 1975 parachute accident and wear and tear caused by regular in-service duties (i.e., carrying a heavy rucksack, prolonged running and walking, numerous parachute jump landings, etc.) and whether this could have produced on-going lower abdominal pain and/or a umbilical hernia. Because medical treatment records cannot be located for the 1980-1989 period and the Veteran has alleged receiving treatment for his complaints during that timeframe, the examiner should not base his or her opinion solely on the lack of treatment notes in the claims file directly after service separation or that the first complaints of record were in August 2002. (Continued on the next page)   Any opinions expressed should be accompanied by supporting rationale. 6. Undertake any additional development as may become indicated and readjudicate the issues on appeal. M. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Dodd, Ryan 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.