Citation Nr: 21006199 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 16-10 260 DATE: February 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s left knee lateral meniscal tear status post arthroscopic partial lateral meniscectomy with osteoarthritis (left knee disorder) was at least as likely as not caused or aggravated by his service-connected right knee disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, a left knee disorder was caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from October 1979 to December 1986. In a June 2019 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2020, the Court granted an August 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand, vacating that portion of the Board’s June 2019 decision which denied service connection for a left knee disorder and remanding the matter to the Board. The Board has considered the Veteran’s claim and decided entitlement based on the evidence or record. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, with respect to his claim. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury which was 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, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is shown to be proximately due to, the result of, or chronically aggravated by, a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. Id.; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995) (en banc) (additional disability resulting from aggravation of a nonservice-connected disorder by a service-connected disorder is also compensable under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. See Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1, 8 (1999). After thorough consideration of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that service connection for a left knee disorder is warranted. There are current diagnosis of left knee osteoarthritis and left knee lateral meniscal tear status post arthroscopic partial lateral meniscectomy, as shown in a March 2015 VA examination. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation). In addition, the medical evidence reflects that the Veteran’s left knee disorder is related to his service-connected right knee disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303; see Allen, 7 Vet. App. 439 (holding that secondary service connection requires that evidence is sufficient to show that the current disability was either caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability). During his March 2015 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he developed left knee pain after he underwent a right knee total joint replacement. In a March 2016 medical opinion, M.G., M.D., opined that the Veteran’s right knee injury resulted in a right knee replacement which led to a left knee replacement. In a September 2016 medical opinion, D.R., M.D. similarly opined that the Veteran’s right knee disorder caused him to bear weight on his left knee, causing overuse, and resulting in a left knee total replacement. The Board finds the March 2016 and September 2016 private opinions to be probative as to the etiology of the Veteran’s left knee disorder, as they provide supporting rationale and explanation. Additionally, there is no medical evidence in the claims file suggesting that the Veteran’s left knee disorder may not be related to his service-connected right knee disorder. As all of the medical evidence of record addressing the relationship between the Veteran’s left knee disorder and his service-connected right knee disorder relates the left knee disorder to the right knee disorder, service connection for a left knee disorder is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The law is clear. Pursuant to the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule, where there is “an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter,” the Veteran shall prevail upon the issue. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Upon weighing the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s left knee disorder was caused or aggravated by his service-connected right knee disorder. With the benefit of the doubt resolved in the Veteran’s favor, a grant of service connection for a left knee disorder is warranted. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990) (“[T]he ‘benefit of the doubt’ standard is similar to the rule deeply embedded in sandlot baseball folklore that ‘the tie goes to the runner’.... [I]f... the play is close, i.e., ‘there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence,’ the veteran prevails by operation of [statute].”). ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Katz, 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.