Citation Nr: 21023286 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 19-30 384 DATE: April 20, 2021 ORDER Service connection for residuals of an in-service left knee injury is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has a current left knee disability that is a residual of the in-service left knee injury. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for residuals of an in-service left knee injury have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from November 1985 to March 1986 with additional periods of ACDUTRA service. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2020 the Veteran presented testimony at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of that proceeding has been associated with the claims file. This appeal has been advanced on the docket. 38 U.S.C. § 7107; 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Duties to Notify and Assist As provided for by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), the VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.326(a). In light of the Board’s favorable decision, however, any deficiencies in VA’s duties to notify and assist the Veteran with his claim decided herein are moot. Service Connection for a Left Knee Disability Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for disability caused by disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a claimed disability, there must be evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship (“nexus”) between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999). Active service includes any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual was disabled from an injury incurred in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a). Further, ACDUTRA includes full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by the Reserves for training purposes. 38 U.S.C. § 101(22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c). Factual Background A June 2015 rating decision denied service connection and the Veteran filed a June 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD). The NOD was never addressed by the RO and the claim remained open. The Veteran filed agin in March 2018 for left knee service connection. During the November 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran stated he was injured after being injured in a foxhole during a period of ACDUTRA. The Veteran explained he continues to have knee problems that have continued since the ACDUTRA injury. Analysis First, there is a current disability. A March 2020 private treatment record showed left knee severe osteoarthritis. The first element of service connection is met. Second, there was an in-service injury. A June 1987 service personnel record (SPR) showed the Veteran did not complete June 1987 ACDUTRA. In October 2020, the Veteran submitted a November 2019 buddy statement. The fellow service member indicated the Veteran injured his left knee during ACDUTRA and did not return to training as a result. The Board finds the November 2019 buddy statement credible and accurate because it is consistent with the Veteran’s SPRs. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (2007) (explaining that lay persons are qualified to report observable symptoms and medical events but not to provide medical opinions about complex medical questions). Accordingly, the second element of service connection has been met. Lastly, the Veteran’s left knee residuals are related to the ACDUTRA injury. The Veteran’s private provider rendered a March 2019 opinion. The private provider stated the Veteran was under their medical care and had disability involving a left knee injury from service in 1987. The private provider rendered an addendum opinion in March 2020. The provider explained the Veteran developed septic arthritis following this injury which eventually led to significant pain and weakness. The Board affords significant probative weight to the private providers opinion. First, the Veteran has been treated at the private facility since at least 2013. See White v. Principi, 243 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the Board may consider a lengthy treating relationship along with all the other evidence when assigning probative weight). Second, the private provider’s opinion is consistent with the prior private treatment records. Notably, an October 2014 private treatment record details the same medical history regarding an injury in-service. Third, the private provider gives a full explanation for the opinion rendered. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (holding that most of the probative value of an opinion comes from its rationale or underlying reasoning). Lastly, there are no contrary opinions of record. For the reasons outlined above, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Bruton, 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.