Citation Nr: 22012505 Decision Date: 03/04/22 Archive Date: 03/04/22 DOCKET NO. 18-53 289 DATE: March 4, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's right knee disability is related to his active service. 2. The Veteran's left knee disability is related to his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a right knee disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. 1. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from March 1977 to September 1986. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in March 2016 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2021. SERVICE CONNECTION Generally, to establish service connection there must be competent evidence showing: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the in-service injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). 1. & 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability The Veteran asserts he is entitled to service connection for a bilateral knee disability. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) document multiple complaints of bilateral knee pain. Additionally, the Veteran's August 1986 separation examination noted that he was being discharged from the service due to bilateral patellofemoral arthralgia. In March 2016, the Veteran underwent a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral knee disability. He reported the onset of his recurring symptoms was in the mid to late 1980's. The Veteran was diagnosed with knee strain. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral knee disability was less likely than not related to his military service. The examiner explained that the Veteran's in-service knee strains would have resolved years ago and that his current disability is the result of over 4 decades of aging, working fairly physically demanding civilian jobs, becoming more physically deconditioned, and gaining weight. A private treating physician submitted a medical opinion in support of the Veteran's claim in November 2018. The physician opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral knee disability is a direct result of physical activity during his military service. The physician explained that years of aggressive physical activity with a significant amount of weightbearing can lead to degeneration and weaken large joints. In November 2021, a second physician submitted a medical opinion in support of the Veteran's claim. The physician noted a diagnosis of bilateral knee osteoarthritis with degenerative changes. The physician opined that the Veteran's bilateral knee disability was more likely than not associated with is previous military service and a direct result of participation in military service duties. The physician explained that medical records at the time of his discharge revealed changes in the Veteran's knees. The examiner further stated that degeneration has continued to evolve and progress since that time. The Board finds that the November 2018 and November 2021 private physician opinions are entitled to great probative weight as such considered all of the pertinent evidence of record, to include the statements of the Veteran, and provided complete rationales, relying on and citing to the records reviewed. Moreover, the physicians offered clear conclusions with supporting data as well as reasoned medical explanations connecting the two. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A]medical opinion... must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). In contrast, the Board finds that the March 2016 VA medical opinion is entitled to little probative weight. In this regard, the opinion was conclusory and did not contain medical reasons and bases for the opinion. Further, the examiner did not consider and address the Veteran's lay statements of recurring pain since 1986. As such, more probative value is given to the private medical opinions of record. Accordingly, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record weighs in favor of the Veteran's claim, and entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to a compensable rating for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The most recent VA examination conducted for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss occurred in March 2016. The Veteran contends that his hearing loss has progressed since his last VA examination. As such, a new VA examination is necessary to obtain the current level of severity of the Veteran's disability. (Continued on next page) The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. K. Hall, 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.