Citation Nr: 22011809 Decision Date: 03/02/22 Archive Date: 03/02/22 DOCKET NO. 17-57 975 DATE: March 2, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1973 to March 1993. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), in Atlanta, Georgia. In the Veteran's November 2017 substantive appeal, he requested a Board hearing. The Veteran was afforded a hearing in February 2021. In an August 2021 decision, the Board granted the petition to reopen the claim for a right knee condition and remanded the claim for a VA examination. The RO issued a December 2021 supplemental statement of case (SSOC) and the case was returned to the Board. In January 2019, the Veteran submitted a RAMP Opt-in election form and choose the supplemental claim review option, however his opt-in had not been processed prior to the Veteran's case pending before the Board. In June 2021, the Veteran was notified that he could elect his claim be processed in the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) system, however he did not respond and therefore his claim remained in the legacy system. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded The Veteran contends that his right knee condition is due to his military service. The Veteran was diagnosed with mild degenerative joint disease in March 2006 and right knee chondromalacia and a meniscus tear in December 2017. See March 2015 and July 2018 Private Medical Treatment Records. The Veteran testified that while in service he had eight sick calls for his knees due to swelling and that he continues to have issues with pain and swelling in his right knee since that time. See February 2021 Hearing Transcript and April 2016 Email Correspondence. During an October 2021 VA examination, the Veteran reported right knee pain, swelling, and buckling due to chondromalacia and a meniscal tear. The examiner opined the Veteran's right knee condition was not due to, or caused by, his active service. In support of their opinion, the examiner stated that although the Veteran had multiple right knee injuries during service, that they were acute and did not result in a chronic condition. Further, his service treatment records (STRs) were silent for continuous treatment and therefore his degenerative joint disease was likely due to the natural aging process. The mere absence of treatment records should not be the sole basis for a negative opinion. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 40 (2007). In addition, the examiner disregarded the Veteran's statements regarding the onset of his symptoms and failed to support their conclusion that the Veteran's injuries in service were acute and did not result in a chronic condition. Therefore, the Board finds the medical opinion is inadequate and failed to substantially comply with the Board's August 2021 remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding veterans are entitled to compliance with Board remand instructions), Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008) (holding that a medical report cannot merely draw conclusions from data; it should include "a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two"). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with a new clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right knee condition. The claims file must be made available for review, and the examination report should reflect that such review occurred. After reviewing the claims file the examiner must: a. Provide an opinion whether the Veteran's right knee condition is due to, or caused by, his active service. The examiner must discuss the Veteran's statements regarding his symptoms and treatment for his right knee condition while in service and his symptoms since his separation from service. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be considered. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so. A rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided as the Board is precluded from making medical findings. A discussion of the facts and the medical principles involved will be of considerable assistance to the Board, including citation to any supporting medical treatises. J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Aubee, Associate 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.