Citation Nr: 21021404 Decision Date: 04/12/21 Archive Date: 04/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-32 536 DATE: April 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right knee arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left knee arthritis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1973 to September 1973, and from May 1975 to May 1979, the Veteran also had service in the National Guard. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a videoconference hearing in February 2021. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the electronic file. In March 2017, prior to perfecting his appeal to the Board, the Veteran, through his authorized representative, withdrew his appeal for service connection for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea, elevated cholesterol via a written statement. As such, these issues are not on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for right knee arthritis is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left knee arthritis is remanded. The Veteran contends that his bilateral arthritis of the knees was incurred during his active service in 1979 when he fell on his knees on a hard service during a force march. See Hearing Transcript received 2/09/2021 at page 6. Further, the Veteran states that the pain has been present ever since and has become progressively worse since service. Id. at page 7. The Board finds that a remand is warranted because the Veteran was not provided with a VA examination as required under the holding of McLendon vs. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006). See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). Under the holding of McLendon v. Nicholson, the VA is obliged to provide an examination or obtain a medical opinion in a claim of service connection when the record contains competent lay or medical evidence of (1) a current diagnosed disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability; (2) evidence establishing that the veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in-service; and (3) an indication that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease in-service or with another service-connected disability; and (4) insufficient competent medical evidence for VA to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The threshold for finding a link between current disability and service is low. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. The Veteran's reports of a continuity of symptomatology can satisfy the requirement for evidence that the claimed disability may be related to service. Id. The Veteran is competent to report his observable symptoms and history, including the onset and timing of symptoms, and such reports must be considered. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral arthritis of the knees. See Capri received 5/01/2017 at page 25. The Veteran also testified that he hurt his knees while in service when he fell during a force march, and that he has a continuous pain ever since service. See Hearing Transcript received 2/09/2021 at page 6-7. Additionally, the Veteran submitted a medical opinion from his private physician, Dr. S.E., who opined that the Veteran’s left knee osteoarthritis was directly linked to his service and that his right knee was secondary to his left knee condition. See Medical Treatment Record Non-Government received 12/13/2016. The Board finds that the medical opinion is inadequate since Dr. S.E. did not indicate review the Veteran’s medical history or military records. Additionally, there was no rationale. That said, the Board finds that the Veteran’s testimony is sufficient to meet the low threshold of a link to service. Relatedly, since there is no competent medical evidence with which the Board can make a decision, a remand for a VA examination and medical opinion is warranted. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 81-83. These matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for bilateral knee condition. The examiner must review the claims file. The record reflects a current diagnosis of bilateral arthritis of the knees. See Capri received 5/01/2017 at page 25. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: 1. Is the Veteran’s bilateral knee disability at least as likely as not related to service, including the reported fall during a force march in 1979 (see Hearing Transcript received 2/09/2021 at page 6)? The Veteran testified that the knee pain has been present ever since the fall in 1979 and has become progressively worse since service. Hearing Transcript received 2/09/2021 at page 7. Additionally, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral knee condition (1) manifested within presumptive period (1 year for arthritis) after discharge from service, or (2) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service? Provide a rationale to support the opinion. In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran’s description of his in-service injury and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran’s reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of his current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran’s reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran’s reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Dixon, 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.