Citation Nr: 22016375 Decision Date: 03/22/22 Archive Date: 03/22/22 DOCKET NO. 17-13 686 DATE: March 22, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's right knee disorder did not begin during active service, is not otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease and arthritis did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service discharge. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a right knee disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1978 to April 1981. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A hearing transcript has been associated with the record. The Board remanded this matter in March 2021 and October 2021 to the RO for further development to include obtaining updated VA treatment records and etiology opinions. Updated VA treatment records have been associated with the record and a November 2021 letter requested that the Veteran complete an appropriate authorization form to allow VA to obtain private treatment records on his behalf. An addendum etiology opinion was obtained in January 2022. The RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case again denying service connection for the Veteran's claimed right knee disorder. The Board therefore finds that there has been substantial compliance with its previous remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matter now returns to the Board for further appellate review. Service Connection Generally, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a period of war or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic disabilities, such as arthritis, are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is denied. The Veteran contends that his right knee disorder was caused by a fall during physical training in service. See January 2021 Hearing Transcript (pg.5). The Veteran's service treatment records are silent to any complaints, diagnosis or treatments of a right knee disorder. An unsigned Medical Examination for Separation indicates that the Veteran did not wish to have a separation physical. Post-service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative joint disease of the knees in March 2001. The Veteran complained of right knee locking and pain in March 2003 and a June 2004 VA treatment note reflects the Veteran's reports of recurrent knee pain with crepitus and an impression of systemic lupus erythematous (SLE) with predominately joint symptoms. A January 2007 VA treatment note indicates that the Veteran had SLE with joint involvement that including worsening chronic joint pain. The Board has first considered whether service connection for a right knee disorder is warranted on a presumptive basis. However, the record shows that the Veteran's current right knee disorder did not have its onset during service or for many years thereafter. Arthritis was not diagnosed within one year of separation from service. As the Veteran's has not been diagnosed with arthritis that manifested during service or within one year of separation, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 are not for application in this matter. With regards to direct service connection, a January 2022 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with right knee strain. The examiner opined that the Veteran's claimed right knee disorder was less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner reasoned that, although the Veteran claims his right knee pain was caused during service, there are no objective claims file evidence to confirm there was an in-service right knee injury and there were no complaints. Therefore, the Veteran's current right knee strain is less as likely as not caused by an in-service event or injury and no nexus can be established. The examiner considered all evidence of record after thorough review of the claims file, including lay statements properly weighed. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2009); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A] medical opinion...must support its conclusion with an analysis the Board can consider and weight against contrary opinion"). Furthermore, the medical examination report contained clear conclusions with supporting data and a thorough rationale. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301. Therefore, the medical opinion is of great probative value. There are no contrary opinions in the evidence of record. The Board notes that an etiology opinion was provided in July 2021; however, it found this opinion to be inadequate in its October 2021 remand. This opinion is therefore being afforded little, if any, probative weight. The Board acknowledges the statements of the Veteran as to the existence and etiology of his claimed right knee disorder and acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to give evidence about what he experienced. For example, he is competent to discuss the fact that he experiences symptoms of pain. See, e.g., Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, while the Veteran is competent to report his current symptoms, as a lay person he does not have the education, training, or experience to diagnose or opine as to the etiology of the condition. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). Therefore, the Veteran's statements are of low probative value. Therefore, the Board concludes that the weight of the persuasive evidence is against finding that the Veteran meets the criteria for service connection for a right knee disorder. The claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Adeyemi, 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.