Citation Nr: 21006913 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 09-21 699 DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability, to include as secondary to allergic rhinitis, is remanded. Entitlement to an increased initial rating for right knee limitation of extension, currently rated as 10 percent disabling prior to June 29, 2011 and 40 percent disabling thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee instability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 2000 to October 2002. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)Regional Office (RO). In February 2016, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of this hearing is of record. This matter was last before the Board in March 2019, when it was remanded for additional development.   During the pendency of the last remand entitlement to service connection for sinusitis and allergic rhinitis were granted in a September 2020 rating decision. Accordingly, those issues have been resolved and are not presently on appeal before the Board. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability, to include as secondary to allergic rhinitis, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an increased initial rating for right knee limitation of extension, currently rated as 10 percent disabling prior to June 29, 2011 and 40 percent disabling thereafter is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee instability is remanded. The evidence indicates there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. A VA treatment record from July 31, 2020 indicates that the Veteran was to return for a follow up appointment on October 15, 2020. VA treatment records subsequent to July 31, 2020 have not been associated with the claims file. A remand to obtain the outstanding records is required. See Jones v. Wilkie, 918 F.3d 922, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Regarding the Veteran’s left eye claim, as noted above, a September 2020 rating decision granted service connection for allergic rhinitis. Accordingly, the Board finds an addendum opinion is necessary to determine whether the Veteran’s left eye disability, including his allergic conjunctivitis, is secondary to his service-connected allergic rhinitis. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have recently treated him for his claimed disabilities. After securing any necessary releases, request any relevant records identified. In addition, obtain updated VA treatment records dated since July 31, 2020. If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such. 2. After records development is completed to the extent possible, forward the claims file to a VA clinician to obtain an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran's left eye claim. If an examination is deemed necessary to respond to the questions presented, one should be scheduled. Following review of the claims file, the clinician should opine: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any left eye disability, including allergic conjunctivitis, was caused by the service-connected allergic rhinitis? (b.) If not caused by the Veteran’s service-connected allergic rhinitis, is it at least as likely as not that any left eye disability, including the Veteran’s allergic conjunctivitis, is worsened beyond natural progression (aggravated) by his service-connected allergic rhinitis? If the clinician finds that the Veteran's left eye disability, including his allergic conjunctivitis, was aggravated by his service-connected allergic rhinitis, the clinician should attempt to quantify the level of aggravation beyond the baseline level of eye disability. In so opining, the clinician should address the March 11, 2020 notation that the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis was treated with, inter alia, eye drops.   A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions and conclusions expressed. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Anderson 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.