Citation Nr: 21027516 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/05/21 DOCKET NO. 14-02 770 DATE: May 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right knee secondary to degenerative joint disease of the left knee is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1964 to May 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran died in August 2014. The Board dismissed his appeal in January 2015. Thereafter, the RO recognized the appellant, who is the Veteran's surviving spouse, as a substitute claimant in January 2018. See December 2014 VA Form 21-0847; 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010. In an August 2018 decision, the Board reopened the claim and it remanded for further development. Afterwards, in January 2020, the Board denied the claim. See BVA Decision received 1/16/2020. In December 2020, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court) granted a joint motion for remand (JMR), vacating the January 2020 decision and remanding the claim back to the Board after finding that the Board did not ensure substantial compliance with the August 2018 remand directives. Accordingly, consistent with the JMR, the Board will remand this matter back to the RO for an addendum medical opinion that substantially complies with the August 2018 remand directives. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right knee secondary to degenerative joint disease of the left knee is remanded. In his Form 9, the Veteran asserted that his service-connected left knee condition caused additional wear and tear on his right knee, which then caused his right knee condition. See Form 9 received 1/22/2014. Pursuant to the JMR, on remand the Board will direct that the RO provide an addendum medical opinion that opines on the Veteran's right knee condition to include (1) degenerative joint disease, (2) degenerative arthritis, and (3) a torn medical meniscus. See CAVC Decision received 12/21/2020 at page 3. In providing the aforementioned opinions, the VA examiner must also address the medical opinion of Dr. H. Specifically, Dr. H, the Veteran's private physician, opined that "his left knee injury possibly did force him to use is right knee more consistently, perhaps adding to the fact that he ended up having arthritis in the right knee as well." See Medical Treatment Record received 10/08/2013 at page 1. In an earlier treatment record Dr. H additionally stated that the left knee injury brought on the earlier onset of the degenerative process in the right knee. See Third Party Correspondence received 10/04/2013 at page 11. Therefore, any opinion should address not only address secondary service connection but aggravation the right knee condition by the service-connected left knee disability. See CAVC Decision received 12/21/2020 at page 3. Lastly, the examiner should consider the positive nexus opinion of the July 2008 VA examiner, who when providing a negative nexus opinion for the Veteran's left knee condition stated that the Veteran's right knee condition was at least as not related to his left knee condition. See VA examination received 7/16/2008 at page 1. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: Refer the claims file to an examiner for preparation of an addendum opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran's right knee disability. Following a review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to opine whether it is as least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's right knee disability, to include (a) degenerative joint disease, (b) degenerative arthritis, and (c) torn medical meniscus: (1) had its onset inservice or is otherwise related to service, to include as a result of the documented September 1965 chronic left knee strain therein (please address the August 2013 opinion from Dr. Henderson in this regard); (2) is proximately due to his service-connected left knee disability; or (3) has been aggravated (worsened) by his service-connected left knee disability. In addressing this question, please consider whether the Veteran favored his right knee as a result of his left knee disability, thereby resulting in right knee disability, and address Dr. H's August 2013 opinion this regard. (See Medical Treatment Non-Government Facility received 10/08/2013). (4) Please separately address the Veteran's torn medical meniscus as noted by Board's 2018 remand the JMR. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. In this regard, please try to connect an analysis to connect your conclusion to relevant data. If unable to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain the basis for this conclusion (e.g. lack of sufficient information/evidence, the limits of medical knowledge, etc.)" See BVA Decision received 8/21/2018 at page 6. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Dixon, 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.