Citation Nr: 21022196 Decision Date: 04/15/21 Archive Date: 04/15/21 DOCKET NO. 14-28 934A DATE: April 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right knee disability (claimed as right knee injury), to include as secondary to service-connected left knee degenerative joint disease (DJD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the U.S. Air Force on active duty from June 1983 to April 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the matter for additional development in May 2019. See BVA Decision (May 2019). Specifically, the Board ordered a VA examination and opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s claimed right knee disability. Additionally, the Board remanded for procurement of potentially outstanding medical treatment records. Although there has been substantial compliance with the Board’s prior remand directives, Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141 (1999), aff'd sub nom. Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002), remand is again necessary as explained below. In remanding this matter, the Board makes no finding, implicit or otherwise, as to the credibility of the Veteran's assertions. Neither the Veteran’s credibility nor any lack thereof should be presumed in this remand. Entitlement to service connection for right knee disability is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for a right knee injury. Originally, he argued that it had its onset in service. More specifically, the Veteran testified that he injured his right knee when he was playing basketball and another player collided with him in 1984, which required treatment and casting at Fitzsimons Army Medical Center. See Hearing Testimony (October 2016). More recently, and since the Board’s May 2019 remand, the Veteran’s representative now argues that the Veteran has right knee disability secondary to his service-connected left knee disability. The Board is required to consider all theories of entitlement to service connection. See Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the Board must consider all potential theories of entitlement raised by the evidence). As such, remand is required for addendum opinion to address whether the Veteran’s right knee disability is secondary to service-connected left knee disability. Additionally, the Board recognizes that the RO has made considerable efforts to attempt to obtain potentially outstanding records identified by the Veteran. Most recently, a VA Form 21-6789 noted action to “prepare a final notification letter of unavailability of records from that site,” referring to University of Colorado/Fitzsimmons. See Deferred Rating (November 2020). However, the Veteran has not been properly notified of the outcome of the RO’s attempts and afforded an opportunity to obtain such records himself, if possible. As such, a memorandum of unavailability of records from University of Colorado/Fitzsimmons should be associated with the claims file and, to ensure due process of law, the Veteran should be notified of VA’s attempts to obtain records and the outcome, and he should be afforded an opportunity to provide any relevant records he believes remain outstanding. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Prepare a memorandum of unavailability of records from University of Colorado/Fitzsimmons for the claims file and provide the Veteran with notice of VA’s attempts to obtain the treatment records and the outcome; afforded the Veteran an opportunity to provide any relevant records he believes remain outstanding.. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician to address the etiology of the Veteran’s right knee disability. Based on review of the lay and medical evidence, detail the onset and progression of the Veteran’s right knee disability. Then, address whether the Veteran’s right knee disability is at least as likely as not (1) proximately due to service-connected left knee disability, or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected left knee disability. 3. Ensure that the VA medical opinion obtained include a complete rationale for the conclusions reached. The medical opinion must support the conclusions reached with an analysis that is adequate for the Board to consider and weigh against other evidence of record; medical opinions must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the clinician so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. (Continued on next page) 4. Readjudicate. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. A. Macek, 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.