Citation Nr: 21061991 Decision Date: 10/06/21 Archive Date: 10/06/21 DOCKET NO. 14-38 376A DATE: October 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right knee condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1975 to July 1979. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from March 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2018, the Veteran testified at a BVA video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the file. In June 2018 and March 2021, the Board remanded these matters for additional development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for right knee condition is remanded. The Veteran contends that his left and right knee condition was caused by his MOS as an aircraft mechanic, which required him to repeatedly bend his knees. See Hearing Transcript received 1/26/2016 at page 4. The Veteran also claims that he has bilateral knee arthritis. Id. at page 7. The Board finds that a remand is warranted for substantial compliance with the March 2021 Board remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In the March 2021 remand, the VA examiner was directed to provide an x-ray to determine if the Veteran has arthritis in his knees. See Remand BVA received 3/19/2021 at page 8. This was necessary since there was a conflict in the record as to the Veteran's diagnosis. Specifically, a February 2013 VA examination did not diagnose arthritis in his knees but SSA records referenced a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the knees in November 2011. See Medical Treatment Record received 4/15/2019 at page 12, 101. Additionally, at the hearing the Veteran testified that he was told he had "arthritis problems" in his knees. See Hearing Transcript at page 7. Therefore, in order to resolve the conflicting diagnoses, the Board directed that a new x-ray be provided or that if one could not be provided, the VA examiner was directed to explain why. See BVA Remand received 3/19/2021 at page 8. Given that the remand directives were not substantially complied with since a new x-ray was not conducted nor did the VA examiner opine as to why it could not be done, another remand is warranted. These matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his (a) left and (b) right knee condition. The examiner must review the claims file. **The examiner must perform an x-ray of the Veteran's knees to determine if he has arthritis. If this cannot be performed, please explain why.** If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran's condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a "disability" for the purpose of providing the requested opinions below. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is his (a) left and (b) right knee condition at least as likely as not related to service, including repeated bending due to his MOS as an aircraft mechanic? The examiner is asked to reference the Veteran's lay statements of continuous knee pain since service. See Hearing Transcript received 1/26/2016 at pages 4-6. A comprehensive rationale for all opinions is to be provided. All pertinent evidence, including both lay and medical, should be considered. If an opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Dixon, 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.