Citation Nr: 21015679 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 12-33 928 DATE: March 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right knee meniscus tear, to include as secondary to right knee anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair residuals, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1994 to March 2000. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a March 2013 videoconference hearing; a transcript is of record. At the outset, the Board notes that the Veteran has additional issues pending before the Board under the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act (AMA). Those appealed issues will be addressed by the Board in a separate adjudication. In a December 2017 decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s appeal for service connection for a right knee meniscus tear. The Veteran subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In July 2018, the parties, the Secretary of VA and the Veteran filed a joint motion for remand (JMR) to vacate the Board's December 2017 decision. In a July 2018 Order, the Court granted the motion. Based on the July 2018 JMR, the Board remanded the issue in a March 2019 decision for further development. In a February 2020 decision, the Board again denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a right knee meniscus tear. The Veteran again appealed to the Court and in October 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) to vacate the Board’s February 2020 decision as it pertained to service connection for a right knee meniscus tear. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee meniscus tear, to include as secondary to right knee anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair residuals, is remanded. In the October 2020 JMPR, the parties determined that the Board erred when it denied the Veteran's claim in reliance on the October 2019 VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran did not have a current right knee meniscus disability and found that the opinion was inadequate. Specifically, the Court found that the examiner referred to a 2017 MRI that was for the left knee rather than the right knee, and thus his rationale for why the Veteran did not have a current right knee meniscus tear was not adequate. Further, the examiner failed to address a prior finding in a June 2015 VA examination of degeneration of the medial meniscus, or otherwise address whether the meniscus degeneration may be secondarily caused by his service-connected right knee ACL surgery residuals. Finally, the Court found that the Board erred by failing to address the Veteran’s March 2013 hearing testimony that he was told by his private physician that he had a current diagnosis of a meniscus tear. The parties agreed that remand was warranted for a new medical opinion or examination which properly considers the correct medical history for Veteran’s right knee and adequately addresses the prior statement regarding meniscus degeneration. To date, a new medical opinion has not been obtained. Therefore, consistent with the October 2020 JMPR and Court Order, a medical opinion reconciling the above-mentioned deficiencies must be obtained prior to adjudication on the merits. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran to identify any pertinent private or VA treatment records that might be outstanding and associate them with the claims file and specifically include records of any complaints, diagnosis, or treatments for a meniscus tear. He should identify locations and approximate dates of treatment and provide any releases needed. All attempts to obtain documents should be associated with the claims folder. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an examiner of appropriate expertise to determine the nature and etiology of any right knee meniscus tear and/or residuals thereof at any time during the period on appeal. (If it is determined that an additional examination is needed to address this matter, such examination should be scheduled in accordance with applicable procedures.) The examiner must be given access to all records contained in the electronic file, and a notation must be made that review of all records has been accomplished. After a thorough review of the medical history, the examiner is requested to prepare a detailed opinion which answers the following: (a) Is it at least as likely as not (that is, a probability of 50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s claimed right knee meniscus tear had its origin in service or is otherwise related to the Veteran's active service? In response to this question please specifically identify whether or not there is clear evidence of a right knee meniscal tear. (b) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability), that the Veteran's claimed right knee meniscus tear (if found) was caused by his service-connected disabilities, including his right knee ACL repair residuals? (c) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's claimed right knee meniscus tear (if found) was aggravated (permanently worsened beyond the natural progress of the disorder) by his service-connected disabilities, including his right knee ACL repair residuals? If aggravation is found, the examiner should attempt to quantify the degree of additional disability resulting from the aggravation. It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he had first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions expressed, based on the examiner's clinical experience, medical expertise, and established medical principles. If medical literature is utilized to formulate any opinion, the examiner must provide adequate citation and discussion of such literature or research. If an opinion cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. The examiner should specifically address and reconcile any previous examination reports, to include the June 2015 examination report noting meniscus degeneration, as well as any other pertinent evidence of record, as necessary. 3. After the development requested has been completed, the AOJ should review any examination report to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this remand. If the report is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures at once. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Sneeringer, 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.