Citation Nr: 21005610 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 13-23 112 DATE: February 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a left knee disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from August 1968 to May 1970. An October 2018 Board decision remanded the issue on appeal for further development. That development has been accomplished, and the claim has now been returned to the Board for further action. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). A June 2020 rating decision granted service connection for left shoulder rotator cuff tear, right shoulder rotator cuff tear, lumbosacral strain, and right knee meniscus tear. As the Veteran did not disagree with the evaluation or effective date for either disability, the issues are no longer on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability. Service connection will be granted for disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing, (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA must determine whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. The Veteran asserts that he injured his left knee during active service when he fell from a hatch on a Navy ship. Service treatment records fail to reflect any treatment or diagnosis for any left knee disability. Post-service medical treatment records similarly fail to reflect any treatment for diagnosis of any left knee disability. An August 2018 VA examination report noted the Veteran’s left knee was normal upon examination. The examiner remarked that there was no objective evidence of a left knee condition found on examination. An October 2019 VA examination report opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s claimed left knee disability was related to active service because upon physical examination there was no current left knee diagnosis. The examiner further stated that the Veteran did not report any left knee disability related to military service. After review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for a left knee disability is not warranted as there is no competent evidence that the Veteran has, or at any time during the pendency of the instant claim has had, any diagnosed left knee disability. No medical provider has diagnosed such a disability. Indeed, the only medical evidence in the record that adequately addresses whether or not the Veteran has any left knee disability is the August 2018 and October 2019 VA examination reports which found that the Veteran did not have any such diagnosis. In this case, the Board finds the medical examiners’ opinions are well-reasoned and thorough, having considered the entire record, including the Veteran’s medical history, and provides specific medical evidence for the opinions rendered. They are also not contradicted by any other medical evidence of record. The medical opinions thus warrant probative weight. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). While the Veteran competently asserts that he had an injury to the left knee while in active service, the diagnosis of any current disability or residual from a left knee injury requires clinical testing and medical expertise and cannot simply be diagnosed by lay observation alone. The Veteran is not considered competent (meaning medically qualified by training or experience) to diagnose these conditions or relate these conditions to any incident during his active service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, there is then no need to address whether these lay statements in this regard are also credible. Id. (Continued on the next page)   Here, the Veteran has not shown by medical evidence the presence of any diagnosed left knee disability, and the evidence fails to establish functional impairment of the left knee that would suggest a disability even in the absence of a diagnosis. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As there is no competent evidence that the Veteran has, or has had, a diagnosis of any left knee disability, he has not presented a valid claim of service connection for such disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; see also Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). The preponderance of the evidence is against this claim. Accordingly, the appeal in the matter must be denied. Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Peden 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.