Citation Nr: 21040456 Decision Date: 07/03/21 Archive Date: 07/03/21 DOCKET NO. 14-35 286A DATE: July 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for reflux is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A July 2020 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted service connection for left knee total knee replacement. 2. Because the appealed issue was fully granted by the AOJ in its July 2020 rating decision, there is no question of fact or law in this matter remaining for the Board to consider. . CONCLUSION OF LAW The issue of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is rendered moot by the July 2020 rating decision which granted the claim; the Board has no further jurisdiction in this matter. 38 U.S.C. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. § 20.101. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to March 1988. This case was previously before the Board in May 2018, at which time it was remanded for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability In a July 2020 rating decision, the Veteran was awarded service connection for left knee total knee replacement. This represents a full grant of the claim for service connection for a left knee disability previously on appeal. Because the appealed issue was fully granted by the AOJ in its July 2020 rating decision, there remain no allegations of errors in fact or law for appellate consideration regarding this issue. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in this matter, and the appeal in the matter must be dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for reflux is remanded. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board's previous remand directives. In its prior remand the Board directed the AOJ to obtain examinations for the Veteran's sleep apnea and reflux and specifically instructed the examiners to address lay statements of record regarding the Veteran's symptoms both during and post-service. The opinions rendered in November 2019 state only that there are no medical records showing symptoms in service. They do not acknowledge or discuss the lay evidence of record. Another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's sleep apnea. The examiner is asked to furnish a response to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (i.e. greater than 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's sleep apnea had onset in, or is otherwise related to his period of active service, to include the Veteran's feelings of being "washed out" noted in service treatment records? In providing a response, the examiner should consider all lay assertions, to include any allegations of continuity of symptomatology, as well as statements from the Veteran's wife. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's reflux. The examiner is asked to furnish a response to the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (i.e. 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's reflux had onset in, or is otherwise related to his period of active service? In providing a response, the examiner's attention is specifically directed to service treatment records noting treatment for reflux. In rendering the opinion, the examiner should consider the Veteran's competent observations of experiencing such symptoms since service, as well as post-service records noting diagnosis and treatment for reflux. A complete rationale should be provided for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 3. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Creegan 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.