Citation Nr: 21027750 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 16-32 578 DATE: May 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a disability of either knee joint. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §3.303(a), 3.307, §3.309. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §3.303(a), 3.307, §3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from June 1988 to June 1991 and from August 1999 to August 2003. This current appeal arises from a January 2015 rating decision. Although the Veteran initially requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the VA Regional Office (RO) when he perfected a timely appeal in July 2016, he later withdrew his Board hearing request in December 2016. See 38 C.F.R. §20.704. In September 2019, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded this appeal for further evidentiary development. Following completion of such requested actions, these claims have now returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. Service connection for a left knee disability Service connection for a right knee disability The Veteran seeks service connection for a bilateral knee disability. He contends that he developed knee pain due to performing jumps completed during his in service airborne responsibilities. Service connection is warranted where evidence shows that an injury or disease that results in a current disability was incurred during service or was aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §3.303(a). Evidence must support (1) a current disability; (2) an in service injury or event; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the in service injury or event. 38 C.F.R. §3.303(a). As to whether there is a current diagnosis of a disability of either knee joint, VA treatment records document the Veteran's ongoing complaints regarding bilateral knee pain. Pertaining to past surgical history, it was noted that he underwent a right knee arthroscopy and medial meniscectomy in 1993. See November 2019 VA Medical Treatment Records (CAPRI). A September 2003 VA examination of the Veteran's musculoskeletal system notes that all his joints, with the exception of his left hip, exhibited full range of motion with normal muscle strength. See May 2015 VA Medical Treatment Records (CAPRI). An October 2003 Primary Care Note indicates that he did not have any musculoskeletal problems. See Id. At a June 2014 Primary Care outpatient treatment session, the Veteran reported ongoing knee pain impacting his ability to run. Bilateral medial joint line tenderness was shown, but his knees were stable with no effusion or edema. See May 2015 VA Medical Treatment Records (CAPRI). X rays taken of the Veteran's in June 2014 showed no fracture or significant joint space narrowing. Soft tissues were noted to be unremarkable. The impression given was unremarkable examination. See March 2018 VA Medical Treatment Record (CAPRI). At a July 2020 VA Examination, the examiner determined that there was no objective evidence to support a bilateral knee condition. The ranges of motion of these joints were normal. No pain was identified in these joints, and there were no factors that caused functional loss or limited functional ability. Muscle strength was normal. There were no meniscal conditions or joint instability noted. The Veteran did not require an assistive device for his knees. In this regard, the Board also notes that service treatment records are absent of any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment of bilateral knee pain. Clinical evaluations of the Veteran's knees showed them to be in normal condition. See June 2004 and October 2006 Service Treatment Records (STR). Based on the evidence of the record, the Board finds that there is no current disability. Service connection requires a showing of a current disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability (and, if so, of a nexus between that disability and service), there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The current disability requirement is satisfied when the claimant has a disability at the time the claim is filed or during the pendency of the appeal even though the disability may resolve prior to adjudication. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Also, "when the record contains a recent diagnosis of a disability prior to a veteran filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency." Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293-94 (2013). The Board acknowledges the notation that the Veteran underwent a surgical procedure for his right knee in 1993. This would have occurred after two years after his first period of active service and six years prior to his second year of active service. As stated previously, the clinical evaluation of the Veteran's knees during service yielded normal results. More importantly, the Veteran did not report any knee abnormalities during his first or second period of active service. He did not report the 1993 surgical operation in his second period of active service. Also, the post-service medical records, which include imaging tests, do not show any residuals regarding that surgical operation. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's complaints regarding bilateral knee pain and has also considered the holding in Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which states that the presence of pain alone can be considered a disability if the pain reaches the level of functional impairment of earning capacity. To establish compensation based on pain as a disability, there must be a showing of functional loss. Id. On the most recent examination in July 2020, the range of motion of the Veteran's knees were in normal range. Additionally, there was no pain noted upon examination and no functional impact due to his knee pain. The VA treatment records also show that the Veteran had normal range of his knee. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical opinions, determining the etiology of a knee disability falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. The Veteran has not demonstrated the medical expertise required for this matter. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 (2007). The Board does not find that the Veteran's assertions lack credibility merely because those assertions are unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Rather, the Board finds that the Veteran's assertions are outweighed by the medical reports of symptoms, diagnostic testing, and assessments provided in the medical records. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran experiences bilateral knee pain. Unfortunately, his knee pain does not rise to the level of functional impairment that is required for pain to be considered a disability. The Board is sympathetic to the Veteran's claim but finds that the weight of the evidence is against a finding of service connection for a disability of either knee. The Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, this doctrine is not applicable. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Middleton, 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.