Citation Nr: 21070813 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 19-15 907 DATE: November 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left hand condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for 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 June 1956 to October 1957. The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a video hearing in November 2021. 1. Entitlement to service connection for left hand condition is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left knee condition is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for right knee condition is remanded. The Board finds that remand is warranted for additional development. First, the Board notes that the Veteran claimed in an October 2018 Notice of Disagreement that his records were destroyed in the St. Louis fire. The Board notes that VA records are housed at the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Missouri and that facility did have a fire in 1973 where some records were destroyed. The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis Missouri, in response to VA requests, reported the records may have been destroyed in a fire at the Records Center in 1973. NPRC could not confirm the existence of such records; only the fact that if they had been stored at the Records Center, they would have been stored in an area damaged by the fire. In an appeal such as this, when service records are lost or missing, VA has a heightened duty to assist, as well as an obligation to explain its findings and conclusions and carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217-18 (2005), citing Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996); see also Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). The Board notes that the most recent VA treatment records in the claims file are from May 2019. On remand, efforts should be made to procure any updated records of treatment. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c). See also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992) (holding that VA is charged with constructive notice of medical evidence in its possession). As to the claims of entitlement to service connection for a left-hand condition and bilateral knee condition, the Veteran asserts that his disorders are a result of active-duty service and he has continued to experience difficulty since service. In an October 2018 VA treatment record, the Veteran stated that he injured his hand while working as an ambulance driver in service. He stated that he smashed his left fifth digit on the floor and was unable to bend his finger. The Veteran also reported having gaps in his knee bones and lower extremity leg stiffness. To date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine whether he has a current left-hand and bilateral knee disorders that had their onset during service or are related to injuries sustained in service. The competent lay statements concerning in-service injury of left-hand and bilateral knee symptoms, in absence of the availability of service treatment records through no fault of his own, is sufficient to trigger VA's duty to assist by affording him VA examinations for these claimed disorders. On remand, the Veteran should be provided with a VA examination to determine the nature of his left-hand and bilateral knee disorders and whether they had an onset during his period of service or is related to injury sustained in service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the appropriate VA Medical Center and obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding records of treatment. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified, and this should be documented for the record. Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his or her representative. 2. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, provide the Veteran with an appropriate examination to determine the etiology of his left-hand condition. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated tests and studies must be accomplished, and all clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the left-hand condition had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active military service. 3. After any additional records are associated with the claims file, provide the Veteran with an appropriate examination to determine the etiology of his bilateral knee condition. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated tests and studies must be accomplished, and all clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The examiner must provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the bilateral knee condition had onset in, or is otherwise related to, active military service. 4. A rationale must be provided for any opinion given and should be supported with citation to evidence in the record, medical treatise evidence, or known medical principles. Particularly, the VA examiner is reminded that he or she cannot rely solely on the lack STRs to provide a negative opinion. The examiner must also presume that the Veteran's lay statements regarding his in-service injuries are credible. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board AK 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.