Citation Nr: 21070323 Decision Date: 11/23/21 Archive Date: 11/23/21 DOCKET NO. 17-02 507 DATE: November 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a recurrent left knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1991 to August 1996. Entitlement to service connection for a recurrent left knee disability is remanded. Unfortunately, another remand is required in this case. Although the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the claim. The report of the March 1996 chapter physical examination states that the Veteran complained of occasional left knee pain, swelling, and cramping associated with walking and running. The examiner did not note any left knee abnormalities. The report of a September 2021 knee examination conducted for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) states that the Veteran was diagnosed with left knee strain. The examiner observed that the Veteran had "pain while walking" and was "unable to squat or kneel." The examiner concluded that "the claimed condition was less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in service injury, event, or illness." The physician commented that "there was one notation on a health exam dated 1/13/96 that noted cramps in her knees, but she never saw her PCP for this;" "there were no medical records for left knee pain for many years after that;" "there was nothing noted on her chapter examination dated 3/31/96;" and "therefore, it is less likely than not that her left knee pain is related to anything that occurred while in the military." Given the examiner's erroneous statement that "there was nothing noted on her chapter examination dated 3/31/96," the Board finds that the evaluation is of limited probative value. VA's duty to assist includes, in appropriate cases, the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination which is accurate and fully descriptive. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991). When VA undertakes to obtain an evaluation, it must ensure that the evaluation is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Given the cited deficiencies, further VA knee evaluation is needed. Clinical documentation dated after September 2021 is not of record. VA should obtain all relevant VA and private treatment records which could potentially be helpful in resolving the Veteran's claim. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for each private healthcare provider who has treated any left knee disabilities. Make two requests for the authorized records from all identified healthcare providers unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Obtain any VA treatment records not of record, to include those pertaining to treatment after September 2021. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA knee examination conducted by a medical doctor to assist in determining the nature and etiology of any identified left knee disabilities and any relationship to active service. The examiner must review the record, including the report of the March 1996 chapter physical examination, and should note that review in the report. A rationale for all opinions should be provided. The examiner should: (a) Diagnose all left knee disabilities found. (b) Opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any identified left knee disability had its onset during active service or is related to any incident of service, including the documented in service complaints of left knee pain, swelling, and cramping. The examiner should specifically address the report of the March 1996 chapter physical examination. J. T. HUTCHESON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Emily A. Kotroco 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.