Citation Nr: 21007073 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-61 613 DATE: February 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome is granted. Entitlement to service connection for left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome began during active service. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome began during active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from February 2012 to August 2015. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2017 rating decision. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at an August 2019 hearing. The Veteran contends that his right and left knee disabilities began during service from parachute jumps. The Veteran’s military occupational specialty during service was 11B1P, airborne infantryman. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 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); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The benefit of the doubt rule provides that a veteran will prevail in a case where the positive evidence is in a relative balance with the negative evidence. It is only when the weight of the evidence is against the claim that the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Veteran submitted private treatment records from May 2015. The private physician evaluated the Veteran’s knees and back. The physician noted that the Veteran was in the military and jumped out of airplanes with an airborne unit for three years. The physician also stated that multiple impacts over time led to his current complaints. The Veteran was noted to have knee pain with use and that squatting caused exacerbation. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2017. The examiner found a diagnosis for patellofemoral pain syndrome in both of his knees. The examiner found mild pain on extension for both knees and that pain, weakness, fatiguability or incoordination significantly limited the Veteran’s functional ability with repeated use over time. However, the examiner opined that although the Veteran’s reported duty could cause patellofemoral pain syndrome, there is no evidence in the record regarding the Veteran’s knee issue until two years post discharge. The examiner also noted the Veteran presented at a 2015 Tricare medical appointment where he had complaints about his back but did not have any complaints for his knees. The examiner ultimately opined that the Veteran’s claimed bilateral knee condition, was less likely than not caused by the military occupational specialty. The Veteran was also afforded a VA examination for a lumbosacral strain in June 2017. The examiner found that the Veteran’s lumbosacral strain was at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by the military occupational specialty. The examiner found that service treatment records indicated back pain and that it continued post discharge into 2015. The August 2017 rating decision granted service connection for the Veteran lower back with a 20 percent evaluation. In May 2019, the Veteran submitted “buddy statements” from soldiers that he served with on active duty. In a statement submitted by Sergeant J.R., he stated that he was assigned with the Veteran for multiple jumps and field exercises. Sergeant J.R. also described a jump in 2015 where the Veteran linked up with him after a bad landing from a high wind exit. Sergeant J.R. stated that the Veteran did not want to seek medical attention as he was not wanting it to affect him in an adverse way. In a statement, Sergeant C.S. also detailed a rough landing from a jump where the Veteran was knocked out. Sergeant C.S. stated that the Veteran struggled to walk, and other soldiers had to help him gather his equipment. In a separate buddy statement, another Sergeant C.S. recalled a high wind jump where many servicemembers were injured. He remembered the Veteran had a very rough landing. Sergeant C.S. also stated that the Veteran struggled to carry his ruck, parachute, and machine gun during the exercise. During the hearing in August 2019, the Veteran testified that he experienced rough landings during parachute jumps. The Veteran recalled that during one of his roughest landings, he hurt his knees and was unable to carry his run or rucksack. After the rough landing, the Veteran stated he was examined for his back and underwent physical therapy. The Veteran testified that he also had knee pain. The Veteran acknowledged that he did not mention his knees in the 2015 Tricare medical examination because he was so frightened about his back. He also thought his knee pain would work itself out. The Veteran stated that he was scared to receive treatment in service due to fear of having to work a desk job. In November 2019, the Board remanded this claim for a VA examination due to the new evidence of the May 2019 buddy statements and the August 2019 hearing. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination February 2020 and an addendum opinion in March 2020. The examiner ultimately opined that the knee conditions were less likely than not related to service. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s work as a police officer/SWAT team member was the cause of the Veteran’s knee pain. The Board notes that the VA medical opinions in this case are unfavorable. However, the Veteran submitted private medical records and multiple buddy statements that corroborate his own testimony that support his contention that his active duty service as an airborne infantryman resulted in bilateral knee pain. The Board finds the Veteran’s June 2017 VA examination for his lower back probative as to the Veteran’s military occupational specialty causing bodily injury. More importantly, the May 2015 private treatment record shows the Veteran’s doctor felt his injuries stemmed from his service. The Board also notes the relatively small gap in time from the time of separation from service in August 2015 and filing his intent to file in January 2017. The Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s right and left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome had its onset during service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, his claim for service connection for right and left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Hetman 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.