Citation Nr: 21011238 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 19-22 126 DATE: March 1, 2021 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from October 1984 to February 1985, and active duty from February 1986 to August 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) form a July 2017 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Board denied the Veteran’s claim in January 2020. He appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In September 2020, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), and remanded the matter for action consistent with the terms of the JMR. In the September 2020 JMR, the parties agreed that the Board erred in finding that VA had satisfied its duty to assist, specifically its duty to obtain an adequate medical examination and opinion. They pointed out that on VA examination in August 2016, the examiner premised his negative nexus opinion in part on his determination that the record was silent regarding any knee condition. The parties noted that service treatment records reflected complaints of right knee symptoms and an assessment of ligament strain in November 1986 and September 1988. They additionally noted that the Veteran reported a history of trick or locked knee and leg cramps on separation examination in February 1991, and that he also reported right knee pain while standing for extended periods, and while running. They agreed that the examiner’s opinion was based, in part, on an inaccurate factual premise, and that remand was required to ensure that an adequate VA medical opinion was obtained. The parties also pointed out that the Veteran, in his July 2019 substantive appeal, had stated that he had experienced right knee pain continually since service. They agreed that, on future examination, the examiner should address the Veteran’s contentions. Considering the above discussion, the Board concludes that an additional examination is necessary to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s right knee disability. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed right knee disability. The evidentiary record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. After the record review and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should identify all right knee conditions present during or proximate to the appeal period. The examiner should provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not that any such condition was incurred in, or is otherwise related to, active service. In rendering this opinion, the examiner is asked to specifically address the Veteran’s knee symptomatology and assessments during service, his statements at separation, and his contention that he experienced symptoms continually following separation from service. The examiner advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history. Such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection. The examiner is not to improperly discount the Veteran’s lay statements or mistakenly rely on an absence of medical evidence in the record to support his or her conclusions. The complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the examiner must explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion 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. (Continued on the next page)   2. Then, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim, with application of all appropriate laws, regulations, and case law, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded an appropriate period within which to respond thereto. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Barone, 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.