Citation Nr: 21026834 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-08 055 DATE: May 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee degenerative joint disease as well as 10 percent for right knee lateral instability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from September 2002 to February 2003, October 2006 to March 2008, and April 2010 to June 2011. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2014 rating decision issued by a regional office (hereinafter agency of original jurisdiction or AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In June 2018, the Board advanced this case on the docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(3). 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). The Board previously remanded these claims, as well as those of entitlement to service connection for back, neck and sleep apnea disorders for further development in a June 2018 decision. In a September 2020 rating decision, the AOJ granted the latter three claims in full, and, as such, the Board need not discuss them further. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for a right knee disability is remanded. The Veteran asserts entitlement to a right knee disability rating in excess of the current separate 10 percent ratings assigned for a lateral instability and degenerative joint disease, alleging worsening knee symptoms. The Board observes that the Veteran was last afforded a VA knee examination in November 2013. As such, a more contemporary examination is required and upon remand should be scheduled. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174 (2007) (the passage of time alone, without an allegation of worsening, does not warrant a new examination. However, a material change in the condition or problems and inconsistencies in the prior examination(s) can so warrant). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded. In the June 2018 remand, the Board instructed the AOJ to obtain an addendum opinion as to whether the Veteran's left knee disorder was incurred in or caused by his active service. The examiner was specifically asked to address the Veteran's assertion that his left knee pain began following his 2003 deployment to Kuwait and worsened significantly following his deployment to Kosovo, as well as a June 2010 service treatment notation of left knee pain. The AOJ obtained an addendum opinion in September 2020 in which the examiner opined that the Veteran's left knee disorder was less likely than not due to his active service. The examiner observed that the Veteran's treatment records were silent for left knee complaints until a November 2013 VA examination, which occurred over one and a half years after his separation. However, the examiner failed to address the Veteran's report of a 2003 onset of knee pain with a worsening following deployment to Kosovo, as well as June 2010 treatment records noting the diagnosis of a left knee strain. An examiner's opinion must address the Veteran's relevant lay statements in order to include enough detail to inform the Board's decision. Failure to do so renders that opinion inadequate. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 258-60 (2020). As such, the Board finds the September 2020 VA examiner opinion inadequate, and remand is required. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims file any and all updated VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a new VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected right knee disability. Access to the electronic record must be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner is to provide a detailed review of the Veteran's pertinent medical history, current complaints and the nature and extent of his disability. In order to comply with Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), the examiner is asked to describe whether pain, weakness, fatigue and/or incoordination significantly limits functional ability during flares or repetitive use, and if so, the examiner must estimate range of motion during flares or repetitive use. The examiner should have the Veteran describe and/or demonstrate the extent of motion loss during flares or repetitive use and provide the extent of motion loss described in terms of degrees. If there is no pain and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. The examiner should comment as to whether there is any medical reason to accept or reject the Veteran's description of reduced range of motion during flares or repetitive use. Also, in order to comply with the Court's decision in Correia, the VA examination must include range of motion testing in the following areas: active and passive motion in both weight-bearing and non-weight bearing. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. The VA examiner is asked to provide a complete rationale for any opinion(s) provided. 3. Return the claims file to the VA examiner who authored the September 2020 left knee opinion, or if unavailable, another qualified VA examiner. Following review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to opine whether the Veteran's left knee disorder at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) manifested in or is otherwise related to his active service. The examiner is asked to specifically address June 2010 treatment records indicating the diagnosis of a left knee strain; as well as to state whether there is any medical reason to accept or reject the Veteran's belief that his left knee pain that began during a 2003 deployment to Kuwait and worsened during a deployment to Kosovo represented the onset of his current left knee disorder. A full rationale must be provided for any opinion offered. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. C. Schumacher, 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.