Citation Nr: 21062371
Decision Date: 10/07/21	Archive Date: 10/07/21

DOCKET NO. 17-21 683
DATE: October 7, 2021

REMANDED

1. Entitlement to service connection for right knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbosacral strain, is remanded.

2. Entitlement to service connection for right foot disability, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbosacral strain, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from January 1989 to January 2009.  

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  The Board remanded the appeal in April 2019 to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for right knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbosacral strain

2. Entitlement to service connection for right foot disability, to include as secondary to service-connected lumbosacral strain

Pursuant to April 2019 Board remand, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his right knee and right foot disability in October 2020.  The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with right foot calcaneal spurs, osteopenia of right foot and right knee, bilateral plantar fasciitis, and bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome.  The examiner opined that the Veteran's right knee and right foot disability were less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness.  The examiner's rationale was based on the fact that there is no evidence in the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) of related injuries, treatment, or complaints at separation examination in December 2008.  The examiner added that even if the Veteran injured his right knee in June 1991 and his right foot in March 2002, there was no mention of related conditions, injuries or events at his separation examination in December 2008.  The Board notes that the examiner did not address the Veteran's statements related to his right knee and right foot pain in service, relied on the absence of evidence, and did not provide an adequate rationale or etiology for the right knee and right foot disability.  Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination, it must provide an adequate one).  As such, an addendum VA opinion is necessary. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Forward the Veteran's claims file to a VA examiner to provide an addendum medical opinion addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right knee and right foot disability.  A full examination should not be scheduled unless it is deemed necessary by the examiner or otherwise required by the evidence. 

The examiner must review the claims file, including a copy of this Remand and should note so in the report. 

Thereafter, the examiner is asked to provide an opinion with respect to the following: 

(a) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's right knee disability had its onset during active service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury? 

(b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's right foot disability had its onset during active service or is related to any in-service disease, event, or injury? 

In providing this opinion, the examiner must address the evidence of record, to include the Veteran's lay statements and service treatment records, including the June 1991 right knee injury and the March 2002 right foot strain.

 

 

C. CRAWFORD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Kuzniar, 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.