Citation Nr: 21040370 Decision Date: 07/03/21 Archive Date: 07/03/21 DOCKET NO. 16-58 889 DATE: July 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability to include a torn right knee ACL joint is denied. FINDING OF FACT A right knee disability was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection a right knee disability to include a torn right knee ACL joint have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1985 to November 1989. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for a right knee disability to include a right torn ACL. He argues that he injured his knee during service and that to this day he still has ongoing problems with lateral movements. According to the Veteran, his right knee condition was caused by his service injury and only aggravated by his work-related injury. Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Service treatment records show that in June 1989 the Veteran was treated for right knee pain. He reported that he hit his knee against a machinery shaft. An assessment was given of right knee contusion. The Veteran was placed on light duty for a day. During the September 1989 separation examination, the Veteran denied a history of trick or locked knee. At that time, the lower extremities were shown to be normal. Post service treatment records show that the Veteran had a work-related accident and injured his right knee in November 2005. It was noted that the Veteran sustained a twisting injury to the right knee while at work. The examiner stated that it helped explain the Veteran's persistent symptomatology. During the October 2011 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with an ACL tear of the right knee. The VA examiner opined that it less likely than not that the Veteran's torn right ACL was related to the contusion of the right knee on June 9, 1989. It was noted that it was documented in the Veteran's claims file that he had a twisting injury to the right knee while at work in 2005 after the military. The knee injury was determined to be related to the work injury in 2005. For the reasons detailed above, the Board must find against the Veteran's claim for service connection for a right knee disability. Overall, the Board finds that the service treatment records, post service records showing a work-related right knee injury in 2005, and opinion of the VA examiner are far more probative and persuasive as to the etiology of the Veteran's disability. The etiology opinion was rendered by a medical professional with the expertise to opine on the matter at issue in this case. In addition, the examiner rendered the opinion following a review of the claims folder to include the Veteran's in-service history and post service history as well consideration as to the nature and extent of the current disability. The opinion is consistent with the normal clinical findings during service and the historical record. As such, the Board finds that the 2011 examiner's opinion is entitled to significant probative weight. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22Vet. App.295, 304 (2008). In making this decision, the Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and the circumstances surrounding such. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on observable lay symptoms or conditions, the specific issue in this case, the etiology of the Veteran's right knee disability, falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining in footnote 4 that a Veteran is competent to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg, but not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions). To the extent that the Veteran alleges that his right knee problems started in service and have continued since that time and were aggravated by his work-related injury, the Board finds that this recollection is not consistent with his prior statements. In this respect, his recent statements conflict with the September 1989 separation examination wherein the Veteran specifically denied having trick or locked knee and clinical examination by a military physician found normal findings for the lower extremities at that time. The Board also notes that in April 2008 the Veteran attributed his right knee pain complaints to the work injury that occurred on November 24, 2005. He denied any intervening right knee injuries and he denied any right knee problems prior to November 24, 2005. The Veteran has presented inconsistent statements regarding the onset of his current right knee disability. The Board, however, places greater probative weight to the Veteran's denial of knee problems at separation as these statements were made closer in time to the time period in question. Memory indeed may become faulty with the passage of time. Seng v. Holder, 584 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009). The Veteran's current allegation of right knee problems since service was recollected many years after service and is inconsistent with his prior statements which also include his April 2008 denial of knee problems prior to November 2005. Thus, an award of benefits based upon continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) is not warranted. In sum, the most probative evidence of record preponderates against finding that the Veteran's right knee disability is related to service. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. Accordingly, the claim is denied. Patrick M. Johnson Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T.S. Willie 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.