Citation Nr: 21006506 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 20-17 993 DATE: February 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right knee pain (osteoarthritis) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left knee pain (s/p total knee replacement) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 1961 to December 1961. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for right knee pain (osteoarthritis) is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left knee pain (s/p total knee replacement) is remanded. The Veteran contends that his bilateral knee pain is caused by his military service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, diagnoses or treatment related to the Veteran’s bilateral knee condition. The Veteran’s spouse submitted a statement on behalf of the Veteran indicating that the Veteran did not have any knee problems prior to service, and they dated prior to his enlistment. She indicated that the Veteran would participate in weekly drills and would complain that his knees were hurting, but he did not seek medical care. She also indicated that his knees continued to bother him, but it was not until later in life that he received treatment. In December 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing regarding his knee conditions. The Veteran testified that he injured his knees by kneeling to shoot on the gun range during basic training and AIT training. The Veteran explained that they had to qualify on all the particular weapons that they were using or that they would be using at that time. He testified that he also injured his knees by carrying a full backpack while running. He did not seek treatment for his knees because he did not want to be labeled as he was “trying to get out of something.” The Veteran testified that when he separated from service, he had difficulty walking. In the December 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran’s spouse testified that she knew the Veteran since the eighth grade. She testified that the Veteran treated his knee conditions with a lot of “Ben Gay” to ease the pain. His knee conditions impacted his ability to go up and down stairs. She also testified that the Veteran did not want to seek treatment because he didn’t want to be tagged as a complainer. She testified that VA called to schedule an appointment for the Veteran to receive a VA examination for his knee conditions, but they were in Florida at the time. She requested that the examination be performed in Florida, but she was told that could not be done, and that they should call when they returned to Boston. The Veteran did not refuse to participate in an examination. The Board finds that the threshold for providing a VA examination has been met in this case, and that a remand is required to provide the Veteran an examination. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4)(i); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed knee disability. Provide the record and a copy of this remand to the examiner for review. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner must address the following: (a.) Provide diagnoses, either as shown in the record or on examination, for any current knee disability. (b.) For each diagnosed knee disability, provide an opinion as to whether it is as least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the disability had its onset during the Veteran’s active service or is otherwise causally or etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. The examiner should note any post-service knee, injuries shown in the record or reported by the Veteran on examination and state the significance, if any, of those injuries in determining whether the Veteran’s current knee disability is related to active service. The examiner should indicate that the record was reviewed. 2. Although the Board has not made any credibility determinations, the examiner must note and address that the Veteran and his spouse stated that: (a.) During service, he injured his knees by kneeling to shoot. (b.) He injured his knees by carrying a full backpack while running. (c.) He did not acquire medical treatment because he did not want to be labeled that he was trying to get out of something. (d.) After separating from active service, he had difficulty walking, and has had pain since service. (e.) His spouse stated that he did not have any knee problems prior to service. (f.) His spouse testified that he would participate in weekly drills and would complain that his knees were hurting, but he did not seek medical care. (g.) His spouse testified that the Veteran treated his knee conditions with a lot of “Ben Gay” to ease the pain. 3. A complete rationale must be provided for any opinion or conclusion expressed. The clinician must note that a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence does not, in and of itself, render lay evidence not credible. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). If the examiner is unable to provide any requested opinion, he or she must provide a thorough explanation. 4. The AOJ must review this opinion to ensure it is adequate and complies with the Board’s specific remand directives herein. If deficient in any manner, corrective action must be taken at once. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that AOJ compliance with Board remand directives is not discretionary or optional). 5. After completing the above, and conducting any further development deemed necessary, readjudicate the claim for service connection for his bilateral knee and feet disabilities. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, the Veteran and his representative must be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be given an adequate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Quist, 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.