Citation Nr: 21075977 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 19-35 558 DATE: December 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, his current left knee disability was incurred during his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1985 to June 1989. In December 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned at a virtual hearing. The transcript from the hearing has not yet been associated with the file, as the case is being granted under the Board's "One Touch" program. The hearing transcript will still be processed and associated with the claims file in the ordinary course of business. Service Connection Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from diseases or injuries which are clearly present in service or for a disease diagnosed after discharge from service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to prevail on the issue of service connection, generally, there must be medical evidence of a current disability; medical evidence, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and competent evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); see also Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341, 346 (1999). The second and third elements may be established by showing continuity of symptomatology. Continuity of symptomatology may be shown by demonstrating "(1) that a condition was 'noted' during service or any applicable presumption period; (2) evidence of post-service continuity of the same symptomatology; and (3) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the post-service symptomatology." Barr, supra, at 307; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1316; Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that "[w]hether lay evidence is competent and sufficient in a particular case is a factual issue to be addressed by the Board"). However, the Federal Circuit held that the theory of continuity of symptomatology can be used only in cases involving those conditions explicitly recognized as chronic in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a), such as organic diseases of the nervous system to include sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). When a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, such doubt will be resolved in the favor of the claimant. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for his current left knee disability. More specifically, the Veteran alleges that his current knee disability is related to his time in service as a result of parachute jumps during his active duty service. At the outset, the Board notes that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a current left knee disability. See December 2018 VA knee examination. The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a knee disability. Post-service treatment records show that the Veteran underwent a left total knee replacement in June 2015. The Veteran was afforded a VA medical examination in December 2018. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's current left knee disability was incurred in service. The examiner's rationale noted the lack of in-service treatment. The examiner acknowledged the Veteran's reports that he did not seek care for symptoms relating to his left knee until approximately 2003-2005. The examiner appears to have relied solely on the absence of clinical treatment for a large period of time directly after service as the basis for the negative nexus opinion. However, the absence of documented treatment cannot be the sole basis for finding an uncorroborated statement not credible. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) The Veteran's service personnel records reflect that he earned his parachutist badge while on active duty. The Veteran has consistently alleged that he injured his left knee during these jumps. This is consistent with statements submitted by the Veteran's spouse in June 2020 and the Veteran's mother in December 2018, which note the Veteran's complaints regarding a left knee disability and their observations regarding the same. Thus, in light of the evidence of record, the Veteran's assertions of trauma to the legs during parachute jumps with hard landings are credible and consistent with the circumstances and conditions of his service. As such, the Board concedes that the Veteran was exposed to cumulative physical impact to the knees in service. Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise and satisfactorily establishes that the left knee disability originated during his active service. In reaching this decision, the Board notes that his lay statements consistently and credibly indicated that he sustained trauma to the knees during parachute jumps with hard landings during active duty service. The Veteran's military personnel records, which note that he is the recipient of a parachutist badge, further corroborate his lay testimony. Thus, he has credibly stated that the onset of his left knee disability occurred during service. Although the VA examiner pointed to a lack of evidence to associate the Veteran's current left knee disability to service, because he had numerous jumps during service it is safe to assume that parachute jumping played some role in the development of his left knee disability. Therefore, the Board finds the reports given by him regarding in-service occurrence, as well as the available military personnel records, to be the most probative evidence in this instance. As such, reasonable doubt is resolved in the Veteran's favor and the claim is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board V. Woehlke 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.