Citation Nr: 21032371 Decision Date: 05/26/21 Archive Date: 05/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-03 494 DATE: May 26, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a right knee disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's right knee disability is not related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection of a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1988 to June 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2015 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). This matter was previously the subject of a Board remand in May 2019 to obtain an examination. The examination was obtained along with a medical opinion in August 2019. After the RO issued a supplemental statement of the case, the matter returned to the Board. Service Connection for a Right Knee Disability is Denied. The Veteran contends his current right knee disability is related to a fall he suffered while in the Coast Guard. He reports his knee was injured then and the current manifestations of knee pain are related to the fall. Generally, service connection may be granted for disability or injury incurred in, or aggravated by, active military service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a claimed disorder, there must be (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). The Veteran's has a current right knee disability, which was diagnosed as a right knee strain at a May 2019 VA examination. Knee strain is not a disability subject to the chronic diseases provision at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Veteran reported that he slipped on ice while in Alaska, crashing his knee into a rock. He told the May 2019 examiner that the next day his right knee was swollen. He reports he did not seek medical care and it resolved in two weeks. The Veteran's service treatment records do not note a fall in Alaska resulting in a right knee injury; however, this is consistent with the Veteran's report. His personnel records note he was in Alaska during the approximate time he reports the incident happened. He is also competent to report his own experiences and injuries observable to a lay person. Resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor, an in-service injury is established. The final element necessary for service connection is a causal relationship (nexus) between the in-service injury and the current disability. The Veteran asserts the two are related. However, the record does not demonstrate the Veteran has the requisite experience or training to draw a medical conclusion. Thus, the assertion is not competent. To assist the Veteran in obtaining a competent opinion, VA provided the Veteran with an examination in May 2019. The examiner was requested to provide an opinion on the causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service injury. After reviewing the record and examining the Veteran, the examiner opined the current knee strain could not be linked to the in-service injury. The examiner notes a lack of chronicity of care as the reason the two cannot be linked. The Veteran stated in his January 2016 substantive appeal that he has had significant pain and limitation in his right knee, which would contradict the examiner's reasoning. However, this statement is inconsistent with the record and is not credible. The Veteran also reported to the VA examiner that the in-service injury resolved after two weeks and he was back to normal. This is consistent with the Veteran's separation examination that noted no abnormalities to the Veteran's lower extremities and the Veteran's separation report of medical history where the Veteran reported no right knee impairment. Through his representative, the Veteran argued that the absence of this reporting is often due to Veteran's not wanting to damage their career or retirement benefits or from fear of looking weak, incompetent, or cowardly. However, the Veteran's separation report of medical history did not deny all defects; instead it noted a history of hay fever; stomach, liver, or intestinal problems; broken bones; a history of seasonal sinusitis; a history of a fractured clavicle; and a history of constipation. There is no apparent explanation why the Veteran would neglect to report a history of a right knee problem at separation while reporting the above history of medical problems. Another statement from the Veteran in January 2015 recounts the accident and reports "It still causes me significant pain and swelling at times". This further contradicts the assertion of continuous pain since service. "At times" implies it is intermittent pain, not continuous. When coupled with the Veteran's reported history of right knee pain in a January 2019 treatment record that he had an injury at a young age and then it did not bother him until his 30s when he was doing a lot of kneeling, it would imply there was a large gap of time between incidents of knee pain. The Veteran's assertion that the two events are related, as previously discussed, is one he is not competent to make. The assertion of continuous symptoms, while competent, is not credible. The May 2019 examiner's opinion that the two events were not related is highly probative. The opinion is consistent with the record. It was not necessary to expressly consider the Veteran's lay statement of continuous symptomatology because they were not credible. The preponderance of the evidence is against establishing a causal relationship between the in-service injury and current right knee disability, and the Veteran's claim for service connection of the right knee is denied. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Reed, 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.