Citation Nr: 21009653 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 12-06 586 DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected cold injury residuals is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected cold injury residuals is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1976 to July 1979 and August 1980 to May 1985. The period of active duty service from August 1976 to July 1979 is the only period of service considered to be honorable. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected cold injury residuals is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected cold injury residuals is remanded. The Board finds that an additional remand of the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for right and left knee disorders is required because the November 2020 VA examination is inadequate for adjudication purposes. In the examination report, the examiner the examiner stated that there was not enough evidence as shown by the service medical records or demonstrated by evidence following service to link his currently diagnosed knee disorders to active duty service. The Board finds that this statement is inadequate because the examiner failed to address whether the post-service treatment records, including March 2002, August 2004, and October 2006 treatment records, showed a continuity of symptoms with his active duty service and whether his knee pain could be related to his period of active duty service. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the examination is inadequate, and a new addendum opinion is necessary to determine whether the Veteran’s right and left knee disorders are etiologically related to his active duty service. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should return the claims file to the VA examiner who performed the November 2020 VA examination (or a comparably qualified physician if that examiner is no longer available) to obtain an addendum opinion. The claims file, including any new records, should be provided to the examiner. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s right and left knee pain, as shown in the post-service treatment records, is etiologically related to (i.e., caused by or aggravated by) the Veteran’s active duty service. The examiner is also asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the evidence, including the post-service treatment records, show a continuity of symptoms related to his currently diagnosed knee disorders. In providing this opinion, the examiner should address the post-service treatment records: • A March 2002 treatment record, which reflects that the Veteran reported that his right knee was “giving out” when climbing stairs; • A June 2002 treatment record, which reflects that he sustained injuries to his right leg just below his knee; • A July 2002 treatment record reflecting a diagnosis of knee pain; • A March 2002 treatment record regarding a knee x-ray; • An August 2002 treatment record, which reflects a diagnosis of right knee arthritis; • A July 2003 treatment record, which reflects that he reported continued bilateral knee pain; • An August 2004 treatment record, which reflects that the Veteran reported a history of knee pain, and the results of x-ray testing; and • An October 2006 treatment records, which reflects that the Veteran reported pain in his left and right knees. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinions without resorting to mere speculation, he or she should provide a complete explanation stating why this is so.   In so doing, the examiner should explain whether the inability to provide more definitive opinions is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Crosnicker, Associate Counsel