Citation Nr: 21028377 Decision Date: 05/11/21 Archive Date: 05/11/21 DOCKET NO. 17-53 852 DATE: May 11, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having not been received, the application to reopen the claim for service connection for left knee disorder is denied. New and material evidence having not been received, the application to reopen the claim for service connection for right knee disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from December 1983 to January 1989. 2. Service connection for left and right knee disorders were denied in July 2014; the Veteran did not appeal, and that decision became final. The evidence received since the last final denial in July 2014 does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of service connection for left knee disorder. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107, 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159 (2020). 2. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of service connection for right knee disorder. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107, 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran testified at a March 2021 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, prior unappealed rating decisions may not be reopened absent the submission of new and material evidence warranting revision of the previous decision. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. "New" evidence means evidence "not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers." "Material" evidence means "evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, related to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim." 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). In order to be considered "new and material," the evidence must not be cumulative or redundant, and "must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim," which has been found to be enabling, not preclusive. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). When determining whether the claim should be reopened, the credibility of the newly submitted evidence is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1991). In July 2014, the claims for left and right knee disorders were denied by the RO due to the absence of a nexus between the current disorders and service. Notably, a 2001 X-ray reflected that the knees were normal for the Veteran's age. Further, a July 2014 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's left and right knee disorder were less likely than not incurred in or caused by treatment he received in service more than 25 years before. The Veteran did not file a timely appeal nor was new and material evidence received within one year of the rating action. Therefore, the July 2014 rating decision became final. The evidence added to the record since the July 2014 rating decision consists of clinical records, lay statements, and a hearing transcript. This evidence is new as it was not of record at the time of the final decisions. However, the newly submitted evidence is not material as it does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claims. The evidence does not reflect that left or right knee disorders began during service or are otherwise related to service. While the Veteran testified that a chiropractor told him that his knees were in bad shape due to service, there is no statement from a chiropractor or any other medical professional supporting that opinion. Accordingly, while new evidence has been submitted in support of the claim, it is not material in that it does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the appeals by establishing a nexus to service. As such, while new records have been submitted, they do not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claims, and the application to reopen is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Grzeczkowicz 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.