Citation Nr: 21025388 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 14-08 624 DATE: April 28, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s left knee disorder is caused by active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left knee disorder are 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 in the United States Army from June 1982 to June 1987. The Veteran testified at an April 2017 Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. In a June 2019 Board decision, the Board denied the Veteran’s appeal for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder. The Veteran appealed the June 2019 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), and in April 2020 the Court granted a joint motion for remand that vacated the Board’s decision to deny entitlement to service connection for the left knee. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is granted. The Veteran asserts that his left knee disorder was incurred in service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a left knee disorder that is related to an in-service injury or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). On the December 1981 service treatment record (STR) enlistment report of medical history, the Veteran reported that he does not experience swollen or painful joints or arthritis. In a July 1983 STR, the Veteran complained of left knee pain. He stated the pain worsens with running. The medical provider ruled out a soft tissue injury and placed the Veteran on a seven-day profile. From 2010 onward, VA treatment records show complaints of left knee pain. At the April 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he injured his knees in service. Board Hearing Transcript (T.) at 5. The Veteran stated he suffered sprains in the knees. Id. He stated there are records of soft tissue damage, but he was not diagnosed with varus deformity during service. Id. He stated the varus deformity existed prior to service, but he was not diagnosed with the deformity until he dislocated his ankle. Id. The Veteran testified that he sought treatment for his knees in service at every base he was assigned to. Id. at 6. The Veteran testified that his bilateral knee symptoms have continued since separation from service and have worsened over time. Id. at 10. The May 2018 VA knee examiner indicated that the Veteran has a diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees. The Veteran stated that he had symptoms in the bilateral knees during service. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s knee disorder is less likely than not caused by service. The examiner noted that the Veteran was treated for complaints of the left knee in 1983. The examiner also found that the Veteran began treatment with VA in June 2013 and did not mention symptoms of the left knee, but did report issues with the right knee, right ankle, and back. Therefore, the examiner concluded that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s left knee condition is due to service. The examiner noted that the Veteran has arthritis in the knee, but it is likely related to his post-service employment in a factory or as a forklift operator. The examiner also reasoned there is no continuity of care from the injury or treatment in 1983 until present. In an October 2020 private medical opinion, Dr. D.B.M. opined that the Veteran’s left knee disorder is more likely than not caused by service. Dr. D.B.M. also specifically stated that his opinion is made with a high degree of medical certainty. The medical provider reasoned that the Veteran’s chronic chondromalacia of the patellofemoral joint is the direct result of an “overuse syndrome” involving the excessive running and marching that was required on active duty, as well as subsequent over-compensation for the right knee injury. The medical provider referenced and attached medical literature in support of this opinion. Dr. D.B.M. reviewed the claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and referenced the VA medical opinions. The Board finds the May 2018 VA medical opinion to be inadequate. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Here, the examiner did not consider the Veteran’s reports of injuries and symptoms, to include assertions of left knee problems since service. Further, the examiner did not address the Veteran’s assertions of symptoms since service but did not discount the assertions and provide a reason for doing so. Also, the May 2018 VA examiner stated that the Veteran had not sought treatment from separation from service to 2018; however, the VA treatment records show complaints of chronic knee pain dating from at least 2010. Therefore, the Board finds the May 2018 VA examination to not be persuasive. The Board finds the October 2020 private medical opinion to be persuasive as the medical provider reviewed the claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and provided a medical opinion supported by a rationale and medical literature. Based on the Veteran’s credible assertions, supporting evidence indicating that the Veteran experienced an injury or disease in service, and the October 2020 private medical opinion, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran’s left knee disorder was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Therefore, service connection for a left knee disorder is warranted. The nature and extent of the disability is not before the Board at this time. Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Thompson, Melanie 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.