KNEE IMPAIRMENT OF

K.A. KENNERLY · 2025 · Case ID: A25097298

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from November 1987 to August 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for a left knee disability, lumbar spine disability (including degenerative disc disease), left hip degenerative disease, and right hip degenerative disease. The Board found that while the veteran had a current diagnosis of left knee pain and an in-service complaint of left knee pain from basketball, the evidence did not establish continuity of symptomatology or a causal relationship to service. A VA examiner opined the current knee pain was likely due to post-service occupation and obesity, not the in-service injury. For the lumbar spine, the Board noted the absence of in-service complaints or treatment, and that the first report of symptoms was post-service, linked to work injuries. The Board also found no continuity of symptomatology or service connection for the lumbar spine. Consequently, the claims for lumbar spine disability secondary to the left knee were denied as the primary condition was not service-connected. Similarly, the hip claims were denied due to lack of in-service incurrence, continuity, or service connection, with the VA examiner attributing the hip conditions to occupation and obesity rather than service or secondary to the left knee. The Board found no benefit of the doubt to resolve, denying all claims.

Rationale

Favorable finding of current left knee pain by AOJ; In-service complaint of left knee pain from basketball; Lack of continuity of symptomatology post-service; VA examiner opined pain likely due to post-service occupation and obesity; No medical evidence of record supports causal relationship to service

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

241025-486805

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25097298
Decision Date: 11/07/25 Archive Date: 11/07/25

DOCKET NO. 241025-486805
DATE: November 7, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disability, to include degenerative disc disease (DDD), to include as secondary to a left knee disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left hip degenerative disease, to include as secondary to hazardous chemical exposure and/or a left knee disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right hip degenerative disease, to include as secondary to hazardous chemical exposure and/or a left knee disability is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record does not support a finding that the appellant's current left knee pain is related to his in-service left knee pain or otherwise etiologically related to his military service.

2. The appellant's lumbar spine disability, to include DDD, did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease.

3. The appellant's left hip degenerative disease did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease.

4. The appellant's right hip degenerative disease did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disability, to include DDD, to include as secondary to a left knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left hip degenerative disease, to include as secondary to hazardous chemical exposure and/or a left knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right hip degenerative disease, to include as secondary to hazardous chemical exposure and/or a left knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The appellant had active service in the United States Army from November 1987 to August 1991.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2024 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Veterans Benefits Administration, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), which denied entitlement to service connection for DDD of the lumbar spine, bilateral hip degenerative arthritis, and a left knee disability.

In October 2024, VA timely received the appellant's notice of disagreement (NOD), via VA Form 10182, appealing the September 2024 rating decision to the Board, and requesting Direct Review by a Veterans Law Judge.

Evidentiary Window

As the appellant selected the Direct Review Docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record before the AOJ at the time of its decision on the issue(s) on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300(a), 301. The Board will not consider evidence received after the AOJ decision unless the claimant files a timely request for a Board hearing or an opportunity to submit additional evidence on the NOD (VA Form 10182). 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. The appellant has not filed such a request. If additional evidence was submitted after the AOJ decision, the Board will not consider it. If the appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, the appellant may file a supplemental claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or
decision on the issue(s) on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300(a), 301. The Board will not consider evidence received after the AOJ decision unless the claimant files a timely request for a Board hearing or an opportunity to submit additional evidence on the NOD (VA Form 10182). 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. The appellant has not filed such a request. If additional evidence was submitted after the AOJ decision, the Board will not consider it. If the appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, the appellant may file a supplemental claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim(s), considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included with this decision. See also Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023).

Service Connection

Generally, to establish a direct service connection claim a veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1164, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Certain chronic diseases, such as osteoarthritis, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). To establish chronicity, the evidence must show that a condition was "noted" in service, the evidence of record supports continuous post-service symptomatology, and there is competent evidence of a medical nexus between the present disability and the post-service symptomatology. Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 496 (1997) (overruled on other grounds).

In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider all the relevant medical evidence as well as lay evidence. Furthermore, the Board is required to assess the competency and credibility of the relevant evidence, and to consider its probative weight. When considering whether lay evidence is competent, the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the appellant's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011).

Finally, when determining whether service connection is warranted, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance. Id.

1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied.

The appellant contends that his left knee disability is related to his military service. See Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995), March 26, 2024.

Analysis

In the September 2024 rating decision, the AOJ favorably found that the appellant has a current diagnosis of left knee pain. Favorable findings made by the AOJ are generally binding on the Board, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. See 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c); 20.801(a). Such evidence is not present in this case. Accordingly, the first element required under Shedden is met. See Shedden, supra.

related to his military service. See Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995), March 26, 2024.

Analysis

Regarding the second element, in-service incurrence, the appellant's service treatment records (STRs) reflect that in July 1990 the appellant reported experiencing left knee pain while playing basketball. See STR, July 31, 1990. The clinician noted tenderness on palpation on the back of the knee. Id. The appellant was diagnosed with lateral collateral ligament (LCL) strain. Id. Accordingly, the second element required under Shedden is met. See Shedden, supra.

Regarding continuity of symptoms, a thorough review of private and VA treatment records revealed an October 2001 private examination, at which time the appellant reported having bilateral knee pain for approximately one year. See Private Treatment Record, October 31, 2001. The appellant reported that he worked as a mail carrier and was therefore on his feet all day long. Id. The clinician noted that that x-rays of the knees showed no joint space narrowing and no evidence of degenerative changes, and that it was difficult to determine the origin of the appellant's pain. Id. During a June 2011 VA psychology appointment, the appellant reported that after the military he worked at the post office from 1992 to 2004 until he "blew his knee out". See VA Treatment Record, June 29, 2011. Accordingly, a continuity of symptomatology is not shown by the record.

Regarding the third element, causal relationship, the appellant was provided a VA examination in May 2024. See VA Knee and Lower Leg Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), May 17, 2024. The appellant reported hitting his left knee on a metal coat rack in 1989. Id. The clinician opined that it was less likely that this was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. See VA Medical Opinion DBQ, August 14, 2024. The clinician noted that after the 1990 in-service injury, the next time the appellant complained of knee pain was in October 2001, at which time he reported working as a mail carrier and experiencing bilateral knee pain made worse with walking up and down stairs. Id. The clinician explained that there was no continuity, permanent residual, or chronic disability connecting the current left knee disability and the appellant's military service. Id. The clinician concluded that the cause of the appellant's current left knee pain "is highly likely due to excessive use as a postal carrier and working in an ambulance." Id.

While a VA clinician may not rely on the lack of evidence alone to assess nexus, it can be weighed against the appellant's claims of continuity of symptomatology. The Board does find that the VA clinician reviewed the appellant's STRs and treatment records, noted such review; and considered the appellant's lay statements. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). As such, the Board finds the VA clinician's opinion to be of some probative value.

The Board acknowledges the appellant's belief that his current left knee disability is related to his military service, there is no medical evidence of record to substantiate his claim. Additionally, while the appellant is competent to report having experienced symptoms of knee pain, he is not competent to provide a nexus opinion in this case. The issue is medically complex, and the evidence does not reflect that the appellant has the requisite medical expertise to provide a complex medical opinion. See Jandreau, supra.

The persuasive evidence of record does not support a finding that the appellant's current left knee disability is etiologically related to his military service. Furthermore, the opinion of the VA clinician is not contradicted by any other medical evidence of record. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991) (VA may only consider independent medical evidence to support its findings and is not permitted to base decisions on its own unsubstantiated medical conclusions). Neither the appellant nor his representative have introduced into the record or identified any evidence of record which provides a link between his military service and his current
appellant has the requisite medical expertise to provide a complex medical opinion. See Jandreau, supra.

As there is no evidence which supports a finding that there is a causal relationship between the appellant's current left knee disability and his military service, the third element of Shedden is not satisfied. See Shedden, supra. As there is no benefit of the doubt to resolve, service connection for a left knee disability is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102.

2. Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disability, to include DDD, to include as secondary to a left knee disability is denied.

The appellant contends that his lumbar spine disability, to include DDD is related to his military service, to include exposure to hazardous chemicals while stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama. See Correspondence, December 9, 2019; Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995), March 26, 2024. Alternatively, the appellant asserts that his lumbar spine disability is secondary to his left knee disability. See Report of General Information (VA Form 21-0820), January 17, 2012.

Analysis

At the onset, it is noted that currently, there are no presumptive conditions related to service at Fort McClellan due to chemical exposures. However, under 38 U.S.C. § 1168(a)(1), the Secretary shall provide a veteran with a medical examination and obtain a medical opinion "if a veteran submits to the Secretary a claim for compensation for a service-connected disability [] with evidence of a disability and evidence of participation in a toxic exposure risk activity during" service. This requirement does not apply if the Secretary determines there is no indication of an association between the disability claimed by the veteran and the toxic exposure risk activities toxic exposure risk activities (TERA) for which the veteran submitted evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 1168(c). The Secretary has determined that physical trauma is a condition that has no positive association with toxic exposure. Therefore, a TERA examination and medical opinion are not required in connection with the appellant's claims for service connection for lumbar spine disability, which the appellant alleges was caused by physical trauma. A TERA examination is separate from the examinations that were provided by VA during the appeal period. As such, there was no pre-decisional duty to assist error in the AOJ not providing a TERA examination and medical opinion in connection with this claim. However, even when no presumption applicable, due consideration must still be made for direct service connection or other reasonably raised theories. See Combee, supra.

In the September 2024 rating decision, the AOJ favorably found that the appellant had current diagnoses of degenerative disc disease, chronic low back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, and failed back syndrome. Favorable findings made by the AOJ are generally binding on the Board, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. See 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c); 20.801(a). Such evidence is not present in this case.

Regarding the second element, in-service incurrence, the appellant's STRs are silent for any complaints of or treatment for lumbar spine disability during service. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was diagnosed with or treated for a lumbar spine disability within one year of discharge. Therefore, the second element required by Shedden, in-service disease or injury, is not satisfied. See Shedden, supra.

A thorough review of post-service VA and private treatment records reveal that the first instance of report of lumbar spine symptomatology was during a November 2003 appointment with the appellant's private provider, at which time the appellant reported that he developed pain in his back two days prior. See Private Treatment Record, November 21, 2003. In January 2007, the appellant was seen for acute low back pain, at which time he reported slipping on slippery steps but not falling. See Private Treatment Records, January 25, 2007. In February 2007, the appellant reported that he fell on his back coming down the steps in January 2007. See Private Treatment Records, February 7, 2007. A September 2008 radiology report noted that the appellant had a lifting injury of the spine two weeks with severe lower back pain. See Private Treatment Record, September 8, 2008. X-rays of the lumbar spine revealed marked DDD at L5-S1 level with moderate to marked DDD at L4-5; partial lumbarization of S1 with spina bifida; and facet joint osteoarthritis at L4-5 and L5-S1 levels. Id. In May 2009, the appellant was seen for lower back pain, at which time he reported his lower back pain started in August 2008 after lifting a patient while working at his job as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) with the fire department. See Private Treatment Record, May 28, 2009. The private provider noted that a November 2008 x-ray revealed annular tears at L3-L4 and L4-L5. Id. In May 2024, the appellant was afforded a VA examination, at which time he reported that his back condition started in August 2008 after lifting a patient. See VA Back Conditions DBQ, May 17, 2024. The credible evidence relating to the current disability weighs against a finding that the appellant's lumbar spine DDD has been productive of symptoms continuously since service. As such, service connection is not warranted on a presumptive basis. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 5017; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307, 3.309.

As to whether the appellant's lumbar spine disability is otherwise related to service, the May 2024 VA clinician opined that the appellant's back condition is the result of a non-military work injury. See VA Medical Opinion DBQ, May 17, 2024. The clinician noted that during the examination the appellant stated that his back condition is the result of a post-military work injury as an EMT. Id.

The evidence of record supports and the appellant's May 2024 VA statements the VA clinician's opinion that the appellant's current lumbar spine disability is related to his post-service injuries. As such, the Board finds the VA clinician's opinion to be of some probative value. Based on the foregoing, the credible evidence relating to the appellant's claim weighs against a finding that his current lumbar spine DDD manifested within one year of discharge from the service, has been productive of symptoms continuously since service, or is otherwise etiologically related to his military service. As such, service connection is not warranted on a direct or presumptive basis. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1112, 5017; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

As there is no evidence which supports a finding that there is a causal relationship between the appellant's lumbar spine disability and his military service, the third element of Shedden is not satisfied. See Shedden, supra. As there is no benefit of the doubt to resolve, service connection for lumbar spine disability, to include DDD is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102.

In regard to the appellant's assertion that his lumbar spine disability is related to his left knee disability, the appellant's left knee disability is currently not service-connected. Secondary service connection may not be granted unless the primary disability has already been service-connected. As such, the appellant's lumbar spine disability may not be service-connected as secondary to his non-service-connected left knee disability as a matter of law at this time. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (in cases where the law and not the evidence is dispositive, the claim should be
is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102.

In regard to the appellant's assertion that his lumbar spine disability is related to his left knee disability, the appellant's left knee disability is currently not service-connected. Secondary service connection may not be granted unless the primary disability has already been service-connected. As such, the appellant's lumbar spine disability may not be service-connected as secondary to his non-service-connected left knee disability as a matter of law at this time. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (in cases where the law and not the evidence is dispositive, the claim should be denied because the absence of legal merit or lack of entitlement under the law).

3. Entitlement to service connection for left hip degenerative disease, to include as secondary to hazardous chemical exposure and/or a left knee disability is denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for right hip degenerative disease, to include as secondary to hazardous chemical exposure and/or a left knee disability is denied.

The appellant contends that his left and right hip degenerative disease is related to his military service, to include exposure to hazardous chemicals while stationed at Fort McClellan, Alabama. See Correspondence, December 9, 2019. Alternatively, the appellant asserts that his left and right hip disabilities are secondary to his left knee disability. See Report of General Information (VA Form 21-0820), January 17, 2012.

Analysis

At the onset, it is noted that currently, there are no presumptive conditions related to service at Fort McClellan due to chemical exposures. However, under 38 U.S.C. § 1168(a)(1), the Secretary shall provide a veteran with a medical examination and obtain a medical opinion "if a veteran submits to the Secretary a claim for compensation for a service-connected disability [] with evidence of a disability and evidence of participation in a toxic exposure risk activity during" service. This requirement does not apply if the Secretary determines there is no indication of an association between the disability claimed by the veteran and the TERA for which the veteran submitted evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 1168(c). The Secretary has determined that physical trauma is a condition that has no positive association with toxic exposure. Therefore, a TERA examination and medical opinion are not required in connection with the appellant's claims for service connection for left and right hip disabilities, which the appellant alleges was caused by physical trauma. A TERA examination is separate from the examinations that were provided by VA during the appeal period. As such, there was no pre-decisional duty to assist error in the AOJ not providing a TERA examination and medical opinion in connection with these claims. However, even when no presumption applicable, due consideration must still be made for direct service connection or other reasonably raised theories. See Combee, supra.

In the September 2024 rating decision, the AOJ favorably found that the appellant had a current diagnosis of left and right hip degenerative disease. Favorable findings made by the AOJ are generally binding on the Board, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. See 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c); 20.801(a). Such evidence is not present in this case. As such, the first element of Shedden, a current disability, is satisfied. See Shedden, supra.

Regarding the second element, in-service incurrence, the appellant's STRs are silent for any complaints of or treatment for left or right hip disability during service. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was diagnosed with or treated for a right or left hip disability within one year of discharge. Therefore, the second element required by Shedden, in-service disease or injury, is not satisfied. See Shedden, supra.

A thorough review of the appellant's VA and private treatment record revealed that the first instance of a report a hip disability was during a September 2007 private primary care appointment, the appellant reported experiencing lumbar radiculopathy type pain starting in the left hip area. See Private Treatment Record, September 26, 2007. During a May 2009 private orthopedic back appointment, the appellant reported experiencing episodes of lower back pain radiating down to the right buttock and calf. See Private Treatment Record, May 28, 2009. During a January 2010 orthopedic appointment, the appellant reported that he continued to experience pain in lower part of his back radiating down to both lower extremities with prolonged standing. See Private Treatment Record, January 18, 2010. The clinician noted that range of motion testing reproduced bilateral anterolateral hip
private primary care appointment, the appellant reported experiencing lumbar radiculopathy type pain starting in the left hip area. See Private Treatment Record, September 26, 2007. During a May 2009 private orthopedic back appointment, the appellant reported experiencing episodes of lower back pain radiating down to the right buttock and calf. See Private Treatment Record, May 28, 2009. During a January 2010 orthopedic appointment, the appellant reported that he continued to experience pain in lower part of his back radiating down to both lower extremities with prolonged standing. See Private Treatment Record, January 18, 2010. The clinician noted that range of motion testing reproduced bilateral anterolateral hip and thigh pain; and limited internal rotation of both hips. Id. Additionally, the clinician noted that bilateral lateral hip x-rays revealed mild right hip joint degeneration and severe left hip degeneration. Id. During a March 2010 orthopedic appointment, the appellant reported experiencing increased low back and left hip pain after walking more than 10 to 15 minutes. See Private Treatment Record, March 15, 2010. During a December 2011 orthopedic appointment, the appellant reported that he injured his back at work due to lifting a patient in August 2008 and that his left hip became worse since the injury. See Private Treatment Record, December 6, 2011. The appellant underwent a left total hip arthroplasty (THA) on December 21, 2011. The surgical notes include notation that the appellant was 6 foot, 345 pounds, and extremely obese, with bilateral hip dysplasia with significant degenerative changes of both hips. See Private Treatment Record, December 21, 2011. As the credible evidence relating to the current disability weighs against a finding that the appellant's bilateral hip degenerative arthritis has been productive of symptoms continuously since service, service connection is not warranted on a presumptive basis. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 5017; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.307, 3.309.

In May 2024, the appellant was afforded a VA examination. See VA Hip and Thigh Conditions DBQ, May 17, 2024. The appellant reported that his bilateral hip pain started around 2003 or 2004; and undergoing a left hip replacement in December 2012. Id. Based on review of the record, the appellant's statements, and physical examination, the VA clinician opined that it was less likely that the appellant's left and right hip disabilities were due to or the result of his general medical condition, to include left knee residual or back condition and most likely caused by his occupation exposure of heavy lifting as an EMT and his obesity. See VA Medical Opinion DBQ, May 17, 2024. The Board finds the VA clinician's opinion to be of some probative value. See Nieves-Rodriguez, supra.

While a claimant is generally entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, there is no such doubt to resolve in the appellant's favor in this case. Lynch, supra. The evidence weighs against the left and right hip claims, as the record fails to show that the appellant's bilateral hip disability is related to service, to include as secondary to exposure to hazardous chemicals. As there is no evidence which supports a finding that there is a causal relationship between the appellant's left and right hip disabilities and his military service, the third element of Shedden is not satisfied. See Shedden, supra. As there is no benefit of the doubt to resolve, service connection for a left hip and a right disability, to include degenerative arthritis are denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7.

In regard to the appellant's assertion that his left and right hip disabilities are related to his left knee disability, the appellant's left knee disability is currently not service-connected. Secondary service connection may not be granted unless the primary disability has already been service-connected. As such, the appellant's lumbar spine disability may not be service-connected as secondary to his non-service-connected left knee disability as a matter of law at this time. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (in cases where the law and not the evidence is dispositive, the claim should be denied because the absence of legal merit or lack of entitlement under the law).

K.A. KENNERLY

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board C. Camille NeSmith

The Board's decision in this case is binding
service-connected. Secondary service connection may not be granted unless the primary disability has already been service-connected. As such, the appellant's lumbar spine disability may not be service-connected as secondary to his non-service-connected left knee disability as a matter of law at this time. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (in cases where the law and not the evidence is dispositive, the claim should be denied because the absence of legal merit or lack of entitlement under the law).

K.A. KENNERLY

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board C. Camille NeSmith

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer