Citation Nr: 21028553 Decision Date: 05/11/21 Archive Date: 05/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-32 263 DATE: May 11, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for left knee disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty from October 1976 to February 1977 and additional service with the Army Reserve. In October 2018, the Board remanded the claim of service connection for left knee disorder for further development, to include obtaining the Veteran's U.S. Army Reserve records and a VA examination predicated upon those records. The RO did not properly follow the Board's remand instructions because it acquired the Veteran's U.S. Army Reserve records over one year after his November 2019 VA examination, and failed to obtain an adequate medical addendum opinion to ensure proper development as instructed by Remand Directive #5. Notably, the November 2019 VA examiner noted that the Veteran's U.S. Army Reserve records were not of record at the time of the examination. Additionally, those U.S. Army Reserve records added to the file indicate that in March 1979 the Veteran underwent an honorable discharge and was medically disqualified from reserve service. Consequently, an addendum VA medical opinion is needed to consider this evidence as instructed by the October 2018 Board remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271. Regarding the diagnosis of post-traumatic osteoarthritis, as documented in the November 2019 VA examination, a proper presumptive service connection medical opinion is needed. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Return the Veteran's claims file to the examiner who conducted the November 2019 VA examination for knee and lower leg conditions so a supplemental opinion may be provided. If that examiner is no longer available, provide the Veteran's claims file to a similarly qualified clinician. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review. A new examination (physical or telehealth) is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner must opine as to the following: (a.) Whether it is as at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any diagnosed left knee disorder (other than arthritis) identified during the November 2019 VA examination (including left knee meniscal tear and left knee instability) is etiologically related to or had its onset during any period of active service or ACDUTRA. In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of his in-service injury and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of his current disability, this should be noted. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that the left knee post-traumatic osteoarthritis (1) began during active service, (2) etiologically related to service, or (3) manifested within one year after discharge from active service in February 1977, to include consideration of the Veteran's contention that he has had continuous symptoms of chronic knee pain since 1978? The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. 2. Then, review all medical opinions and any examination report provided to ensure that the requested information was provided. If any report or opinion is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures. (Continued on the next page) 3. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. T. Blake Carter Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board AD 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.