Citation Nr: 22014274 Decision Date: 03/12/22 Archive Date: 03/12/22 DOCKET NO. 18-20 642 DATE: March 12, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, to include a fractured tailbone, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1983 to March 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned at a hearing in July 2021. The Veteran's service treatment records are not available. In a case like this, there is a heightened obligation for VA to assist the claimant in the development of the claim and to provide reasons or bases for any adverse decision rendered without these records. O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). This heightened obligation does not establish a heightened benefit of the doubt or lower the legal standard for proving a claim of service connection. Rather, it increases the Board's obligation to evaluate and discuss in its decision all the evidence that may be favorable to the Veteran. See Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46 (1996). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, to include a fractured tailbone, is remanded. The Veteran contends his current left knee, right knee, and lumbar spine disabilities began on active duty after sustaining injuries while playing basketball. The Veteran's VA treatment records indicate he has left and right knee osteoarthritis. A June 2006 Tripler Army Medical Clinic note indicates the Veteran sought treatment for his lumbar spine and the treatment provider reported the Veteran's lumbar spine exhibited abnormalities. The Veteran also submitted a lay statement indicating he may have arthritis in his lumbar spine. The Veteran testified at the July 2021 hearing that he injured his knees and back while playing basketball on active duty and he was placed on a physical profile for these injuries. The Veteran submitted numerous lay statements and buddy statements that corroborate his testimony. The Veteran's testimony; current diagnosed back, left knee, and right knee conditions; and lay statements of record are sufficient to trigger VA's duty to provide examinations to the Veteran to determine the etiology of his conditions because the evidence meets the low threshold of showing the claimed disabilities may be the result of his active-duty service. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for examinations regarding his service connection claims for his left knee, right knee, and back conditions. The selected examiner must provide an opinion addressing whether the Veteran's left knee, right knee, and back conditions are at least as likely as not (at least an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence) the result of an in-service event, disease, or injury, to include injuries playing basketball. The examiner must be advised the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. The examiner may not dismiss the Veteran's reports of left knee, right knee, and back pain solely on the basis that they are not documented in contemporaneous treatment records because the Veteran's service treatment records are unavailable. The selected examiner must provide a full rationale for his or her conclusion. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Zachery S.C. Luce, 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.