Citation Nr: 21068435 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 16-24 745A DATE: November 10, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left knee disorder is denied. Service connection for a right knee disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from January 2004 to July 2013. 2. Left and right knee disorders, diagnosed as patellofemoral syndrome, chondromalacia patellae, knee arthralgias, knee contusions, and recurvatum instability, were not shown in service and are not causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A left knee disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.309 (2021). 2. A right knee disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.309 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS As a procedural matter, the Board remanded the claims on appeal in July 2019 for additional development, to include obtaining additional VA examinations. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Turning to the medical evidence, the Veteran has current diagnoses of left and right knee disorders. Specifically, as to the left knee, a January 2020 examiner diagnosed patellofemoral syndrome and chondromalacia patella, an April 2014 examination diagnosed left knee arthralgia, and medical treatment notes since November 2018 noted a status/post left knee contusion. Similarly, with regards to the right knee, the January 2020 examiner diagnosed patellofemoral syndrome and chondromalacia patella of the right knee and a January 2014 medical treatment note diagnosed recurvatum instability. As such, current diagnoses of left and right knee disorders have been shown and the first element of service connection has been met. As to an in-service incurrence, a review of the service treatment records (STRs) reveals that the Veteran reported a swollen left knee from running in May 2012. As such, the second element has been met as to the left knee. As to the right knee, the STRs do not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnoses of a right knee disorder. Nevertheless, the Veteran reported in multiple December 2013 treatment notes that he had an 8-month history of knee pain, that his right knee hurt and swelled up when jogging, and that he had a right knee injury in 2011 while serving in Afghanistan. Additionally, the Veteran asserted in July 2015 and June 2016 statements that he complained of right knee swelling in 2007 at an in-service physical and hyperextended his right knee while jogging on a treadmill in Afghanistan. He is competent to report in-service symptoms and experiences capable of lay observation, such as pain and swelling; accordingly, the second element of service connection has been met as to the right knee. As to a medical nexus, the Veteran asserted in a June 2016 statement that his left and right knee disorders were the product of the running he was required to do while on active duty. He explained that physical fitness was a part of his military life and that his annual physical fitness tests were highly dependent on running. He asserted that the training and physical nature of his military service was directly responsible for his patellofemoral syndrome and hyperextended right knee. However, a January 2020 examiner opined that it was less likely than not that his left and right knee disorders were incurred in or caused by service, to include knee pain from running. The examiner noted that the reported swollen left knee from running would not be expected to result in a chronic knee condition or residuals thereof. The examiner further reflected that the STRs did not document continuous medical treatment for left and right knee disorders suggestive of a nexus between his post-separation diagnoses and service. This evidence weighs against the appeals. A review of the clinician evidence reveals multiple treatment notes since December 2013 indicating that the Veteran experienced bilateral knee pain and discomfort. Pain alone can constitute a disability for purposes of service connection. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Moreover, the January 2020 examiner found that the knee disorders, to include bilateral knee pain, affected his ability to perform heavy physical activities requiring prolonged walking or climbing stairs. However, as noted above, the Veteran's knee disorders, to include pain, are not chronic disorders under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) entitled to presumptive service connection on the basis of chronicity or continuity of symptomatology. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, neither the January 2020 VA examination nor the clinical records establish direct nexuses between the Veteran's current knee disorders and his in-service knee injuries, to include pain incurred when running. Based on the above, the medical evidence does not support service connection for the left and right knee disorders. In this regard, while the Veteran contends that he experienced in-service knee pain and swelling, as well as a hyperextended right knee, no medical professional has determined that the symptoms of his current knee disorders stemmed from the in-service complaints. As such, the medical evidence does not support service connection. The Board has considered the lay statements submitted by the Veteran regarding the etiology of his left and right knee disorders. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of any current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined the Veteran during his current appeal and by STRs and clinical records obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to the lay statements. Based on the above, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Spigelman, 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.