Citation Nr: 21025472 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 13-19 555 DATE: April 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of the right knee is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1966 to November 1969. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2011 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in August 2016. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the electronic claims file. The Board issued a prior remand on this claim in June 2015 and a prior decision in May 2018. However, following an appeal to the United States Court for Appeals for Veterans Claims, in June 2019 a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion) was entered, vacating portions of the Board’s May 2018 decision. In compliance with the Joint Remand, the Board again remanded these claims in September 2019. The Board issued another remand in October 2020. 1. Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of the left knee is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of the right knee is remanded. In the September 2020 representative brief, the adequacy of the March 2020 VA examination of the Veteran’s bilateral knees was questioned. Specifically, the Veteran’s representative noted that the VA examiner was a nurse practitioner and did not address the Veteran’s April 2016 hearing testimony that his knee arthritis began “maybe in the ‘70s” and instead based her opinion on the finding that the Veteran’s osteoarthritis began in 2009, when the Veteran was aged 62. The Board notes that the prior October 2013 VA examination also did not address the Veteran’s contentions of knee pain since the 1970s. VA has a duty to address all arguments put forth by a claimant and theories under which entitlement to benefits sought may be awarded. See generally Schroeder v. West, 212 F.3d 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Buckley v. West, 12 Vet. App. 76, 83 (1998). Thus, the claims were remanded in October 2020 to address these problems and obtain an addendum opinion from an orthopedic, MD. The Board notes that an additional medical note regarding the Veteran’s bilateral knees by a nurse practitioner was added to the Veteran’s electronic file in December 2020, and an opinion regarding the Veteran’s left knee was added in January 2021 provided by an MD with no specialty listed. However, this opinion does not discuss the Veteran’s April 2016 hearing testimony as requested, nor does it even address the Veteran’s right knee. It is also unclear if it was provided by an orthopedic, MD as instructed. Accordingly, the Board finds that another remand is warranted. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding remand by the Board confers on the claimant the right to compliance with the remand requests). The Board also notes that additional private treatment records were added to the Veteran’s electronic claims file in February 2021, showing that the Veteran underwent a total knee arthoplasty surgery of the right knee in November 2020. These records should also be considered on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Update the electronic file with any new VA treatment records and private treatment records. 2. After the record has been updated, obtain an addendum opinion from an orthopedic, M.D to the March 2020 VA knee examination report. Based on a review of the file and in light of private treatment records from June 2009, including a radiology report reflecting an impression of “degenerative arthritic changes of the right knee,” the examiner should answer the following question: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any bilateral knee disorder is etiologically related to the Veteran’s military service? In formulating an opinion, the examiner should also specifically consider and address the Veteran’s August 2016 hearing testimony wherein he testified (1) that he started experiencing problems with his knees “maybe in the ‘70s, seem like I had more problems in the ‘70s when I, that was after I got out when things started to going, going south.”; and (2) that he was diagnosed with arthritis of the knees back in the 1970s. The examiner should also review the additional private treatment records added to the Veteran’s electronic claims file in February 2021, showing that the Veteran underwent a right total knee arthroplasty in November 2020. A detailed rationale for the opinion must be provided. If the examiner is unable to offer the requested opinion, it is essential that the examiner offer a rationale for the conclusion that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, together with a statement as to 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. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Ruiz, 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.