Citation Nr: 21010067 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 15-46 197 DATE: February 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability, to include chondromalacia, degenerative arthritis, and meniscal tear is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from August 1972 to July 1974. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) dated in October 2014. This case was remanded to the AOJ in November 2018. Unfortunately, for the reasons that follow, another remand is necessary. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability, to include chondromalacia, degenerative arthritis, and meniscal tear is remanded. The Board is obligated to ensure AOJ compliance with remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. (1998). The November 2018 remand required the AOJ to obtain a medical opinion addressing certain evidence in the claims file, and included specific evidence for the examiner to address. The February 2019 and December 2020 VA opinions did not discuss the evidence as directed. Specifically, an examiner was to discuss evidence identified in the claims file, and the February 2019 VA examiner did not address any specific evidence, and based the opinion on lack of documented of a disability for 40 years after service. The examiners were also required to discuss post-treatment record reflecting complaints of left knee pain in January 1975, but the December 2020 examiner indicated an inability to find the note and therefore concluded there was no documentation of “chronicity.” However, the referenced record is a VA treatment note that was added to the claims file in April 1981. Finally, the December 2020 VA opinion is inadequate because it does not specifically address the Veteran’s contention that he developed a knee disability—arthritis, chondromalacia, or meniscal tear—because of his in-service knee injury. Therefore, another remand is required for an adequate opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a supplemental opinion from an appropriate VA examiner to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s knee disability. Following review of the record, the examiner should respond to the inquiry below. If the examiner determines that he or she cannot respond to the Board’s inquiry as set forth in detail below without examination of the Veteran, the Veteran should be afforded such an in-person examination, or by other means if an in-person examination is not feasible. If an examination is conducted, any indicated tests and studies must be accomplished and all clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. The examiner should address the following: (a.) The examiner must review and address the following evidence: records dated in January 1975, August 1984, October 1981, and May 1996 indicating knee pain that the Veteran attributed to an in-service injury. (b.) The examiner must directly address the Veteran’s contention that he developed a knee disability—arthritis, chondromalacia, or meniscal tear—because of his in-service knee injury. (c.) The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s arthritis, chondromalacia, or meniscus tear is etiologically related to, incurred in, or caused by the Veteran’s military service, including a March 1973 knee injury. A complete rationale must be provided for all expressed opinions. A complete explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. A clearly stated rationale must not be based solely on lack of documentation or records. The reasons for any opinion must include a discussion of the relevant evidence. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Smith, 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.