Citation Nr: 21025922 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-33 348 DATE: April 29, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a right knee disability is granted. Service connection for a left knee disability is granted. Service connection for a right leg disability is granted. Service connection for a left leg disability is granted. Service connection for a low back disability is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his right knee disability onset in active service. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his left knee disability onset in active service. 3. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his right leg disability onset in active service. 4. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his left leg disability onset in active service. 5. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his low back disability onset in active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a right knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for a left knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 3. The criteria for a right leg disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 4. The criteria for a left leg disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 5. The criteria for a low back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from May 1957 to April 1958. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision. In June 2019, the Veteran and appellant testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. In September 2019, the Board remanded this appeal for further evidentiary development. Regrettably, the Veteran passed away during the course of this appeal in May 2020. His widow, the appellant, was subsequently recognized as the appropriate substitute to continue his appeal. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, service connection can also be established through application of a statutory presumption for chronic diseases when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If a chronic disease is not manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation of service, then, generally, a showing of “continuity of symptoms” after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Furthermore, a layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Bilateral Knee, Bilateral Leg, and Low Back Disabilities During his lifetime, the Veteran asserted that his bilateral knee, bilateral leg, and low back disabilities were due to his active service. The appellant now asserts the same. Review of his service treatment records reveal that he was treated for injuries to his legs, knees, and back, including injuries sustained while playing football for the Army. The documented relevant injuries: a sprained right ankle in September 1957; a left knee strain and torn meniscus, a sprained left ankle, and a right knee sprain in October 1957; and a right leg injury and back troubles, including back spasms, in November 1957. At separation, both lower extremities and low back were noted as normal, and no other problems were reported. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of left knee osteoarthritis, right patellofemoral pain syndrome, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, and degenerative arthritis of the spine. Further, as noted above, the in-service event or injury element has also been met. Thus, the only issue left to discuss in the appellant’s claim is whether a causal relationship, or nexus, exists between the Veteran’s bilateral knee, bilateral leg, and back disabilities and his active service. In this regard, at his June 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that, during his service, he played football for the Army. He testified that, while playing football, he injured both knees, both legs, and his back. He stated that, prior to service, he did not have any issues with his knees, legs, or back, but that he had experienced bilateral knee, bilateral leg, and low back pain since service. Further, his sister testified that he has been experiencing problems with his knees, legs, and low back since service. In December 2019, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. At that time, he reported he had been experiencing bilateral knee pain since 1957. He stated that the pain has progressively worsened and that, at the time of the examination, he was no longer able to ambulate. He also reported experiencing low back pain that radiates to both legs. In June 2020, an addendum opinion was obtained to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral knee, bilateral leg, and low back disabilities. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral knee, bilateral leg, and low back disabilities were less likely than not caused by his active service. The examiner based her opinion on the fact that the Veteran’s in-service bilateral knee, bilateral leg, and low back injuries were only acute. Further, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s knees, legs, and back were all reported as normal at separation and that there is no evidence of chronicity of care for the claimed disabilities. While the Board cannot ignore or disregard the VA examiner’s medical conclusions, the Board is free to assess medical evidence and is not compelled to accept a medical opinion. See Willis v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 66 (1991); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992). In this case, the examiner failed to address the Veteran’s competent lay statements regarding the onset of his symptomatology. At his Board hearing and his December 2019 VA examination, he asserted that his bilateral knee, bilateral leg, and low back symptoms began during his active service. As noted above, as a lay person, he is competent to give evidence about observable symptoms such as pain and onset of symptoms. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465. As such, the Board finds the Veteran’s competent lay testimony to be credible. Given the above, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s bilateral knee, bilateral leg, and low back disabilities onset in service or as a result of his active service. Thus, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for the Veteran’s bilateral knee, bilateral leg, and low back disabilities is warranted, as they are current disabilities which onset during his active service. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Benson, 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.