Citation Nr: 21027802 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 16-32 050 DATE: May 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right knee condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the appellant's right knee condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for right knee condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant had active duty service with the Army from February 1996 to June 1996 for Army Reserve basic training. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on an appeal from a March 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In November 2018, the Board remanded the claim for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for right knee condition. The appellant seeks service connection for her right knee condition, and claims she fell and injured it in service. She claims that it happened while she was in formation and given the order to "double time." She explained that the fall caused her pants to be completely torn off her right knee and that she suffered swelling and an open wound. She said her fall resulted in her being on crutches for two to three weeks, given a pass to use the lower bunk, and being put on profile from walking in formation because she was unable to bend her knee for over a week. The appellant's service treatment records are silent for a right knee injury. Though, there is a reference to a fall in service in February 1996. On February 13, 1996, the appellant was seen for left knee pain after she fell while walking in formation. She suffered from swelling and an abrasion/contusion of the left knee. She was put on profile for five days. There are no mentions of complaints, treatments, or diagnoses of any right knee condition. In July 2013, the appellant sought private treatment for her right knee condition. She reported she began to jog and walk the month prior to her visit. She said that a week before her appointment her knee became sore, swollen, and irritated. She reported she had a knee injury in service, but that she also fell again prior to her visit. She also indicated in her initial visit forms that the date of injury or start of the symptoms began on June 1, 2013. In May 2015, the appellant reported to a private orthopedic specialist complaints of chronic right knee pain. She complained the pain had exacerbated over the prior four weeks and reported swelling and catching with increased activities. She denied any known injuries, but said she had physical therapy in the past and taken medications, but that the symptoms have continued. The appellant had an MRI of her right knee on May 14, 2015. The report concluded that the appellant suffered a medial meniscal tear. Her private doctor advised her to start with conservative treatments to manage pain and to have steroid injections before pursuing any surgical interventions. The prior November 2018 Board remand instructed the RO to afford the appellant a VA examination for her right knee condition. In meeting the VA's duty to assist and aid in substantiating the appellant's contentions, the remand instructions directed the examiner to presume the appellant's contention that the documented in-service knee injury was to her right knee rather than her left knee as the service treatment records currently indicate. In accordance with the remand instructions, the appellant underwent a VA examination in November 2019 for her right knee condition. The examiner confirmed the appellant suffered from a right knee meniscal tear. The appellant told the examiner that the onset of her knee injury was in 1996 when she fell and injured her knee. She said she has constant knee pain and takes Tylenol and had had cortisone injections. The examiner opined the appellant's right knee condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. He continued by saying the appellant's medical records do not support that any currently diagnosed condition related to her claimed right knee condition is at least as likely as not incurred in or is etiologically related to the appellant's active military service. He concluded although there was an instance of a right knee issue (2/13/1996), this was acute and not chronic and ongoing, and that the appellant's claimed right knee condition and her previous knee issue during active military service are separate and unrelated. Unfortunately, the history the appellant has presented as to her right knee injury in service is only consistent with the records showing an in-service left knee injury, yet she has persistently claimed that her injury was to her right knee. The Board finds that the service treatment records are explicit and clear in that the appellant injured her left knee, with numerous references to her left knee. Thus, the Board finds the service treatment records more probative than her statements that her injuries were to her right knee. See Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 59 (1994) (noting that contemporaneous evidence has greater probative value than history as reported by the veteran). However, pursuant to the Board's remand instructions to presume the injury was to her right knee and not her left, based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the appellant's current right knee condition is not related to her in-service knee injury, and consequently service connection is not warranted. In reaching this decision, the Board finds the November 2019 VA examiner's opinion highly probative. In this regard, the examiner considered all the pertinent evidence of record, to include the appellant's statements, in particular those regarding her account of her in-service injury to her right knee. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Therefore, the Board finds that service connection for right knee condition is not warranted. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant's claims for service connection. As such, the doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Doerfler, 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.