Citation Nr: 21071781 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 16-33 068 DATE: December 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right knee osteoarthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left knee osteoarthritis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1972 until September 1974. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) rating decision. The Veteran participated in a hearing before the undersigned in August 2019; a transcript is associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to service connection for right knee osteoarthritis is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left knee osteoarthritis is remanded. In May 2021, the Board remanded the claim for an addendum VA examination. The Board found the July 2015 VA examination inadequate as it was based on an inaccurate factual premise and failed to incorporate the Veteran's lay contentions regarding continuity of symptomatology and his in-service Jeep accident. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993); Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249 (2020). After remand, an August 2021 VA medical opinion was obtained. Therein, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral knee osteoarthritis was less likely than not related to service. The examiner stated that "there is no evidence of right or left knee condition while in service . . . the veteran clearly did not have a condition arising while in service," and that "there is no event in service predisposing the veteran to age-appropriate development of a naturally occurring condition. This would include the strenuous nature of PT, marching training, wearing boots, etc." The examiner concluded that any claim of continuity is not supported by the medical evidence as the Veteran's arthritis was first diagnosed 38 years after separation. Unfortunately, the Board must remand for another medical opinion as the May 2021 Board directives were not fully complied with. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Namely, while the August 2021 VA examiner incorporated the Veteran's lay claims regarding continuity, he failed to discuss the Veteran's credible detailing of his in-service Jeep accident, as well as the service treatment records showing complaints for a right knee condition. To this end, it appears as though the VA examiner's statement that "there is no evidence or right or left knee condition while in service" is contradicted by the service treatment records, to include those from July 1973, which show that the Veteran was "having pain in R knee x 3-4 yrs, has been getting worse recently," and that he had "injections in R knee for pain." As this information was not discussed, remand is necessary to obtain an addendum VA medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum VA medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's left and right knee disability. The need for another VA examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, or similar, if an in-person examination is not feasible) is left to the discretion of the VA examiner. The entire claims folder must be reviewed. The VA examiner must provide separate well-reasoned opinions as to each of the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's left knee disability onset in service, within a year of service, or is otherwise directly related to service? (b) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right knee disability onset in service, within a year of service, or is otherwise directly related to service? (c) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's left knee disability was caused or aggravated by his right knee disability? In answering these questions, the examiner must specifically discuss and comment on the service treatment records, to include those from July 1973, showing that the Veteran was "having pain in R knee x 3-4 yrs, has been getting worse recently," and that he had "injections in R knee for pain," and the Veteran's competent and credible lay contentions that he first injured his knees in a Jeep accident in-service, and that his knee symptoms have continued thereafter. Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Finelli, 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.