KNEE IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The Veteran served from August 1987 to April 1991 and June 1995 to June 1998, with a Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. The Veteran appealed the dismissal of service connection for a right knee disability and the denial of service connection for a heart disability, with a remand for hypertension. The Board dismissed the right knee issue, noting that service connection had already been granted with an earlier effective date. For the heart disability, the Board found service connection was warranted, granting the claim. The decision cited the Veteran's in-service complaint of chest pain, a diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction, and a private medical opinion linking the current heart disorder to the in-service symptoms. The Board applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine, finding the evidence in equipoise and resolving it in the Veteran's favor. The hypertension claim was remanded because the Board found that complete private treatment records were missing and no opinion on the etiology of the hypertension had been obtained. The Veteran had testified that his high blood pressure was related to an in-service incident involving incorrect medication. The remand instructions included obtaining private records and scheduling a VA examination to determine the nexus for hypertension.

Rationale

Service connection previously granted; No error of fact or law to adjudicate; Dismissed due to prior grant

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26035692
Decision Date: 04/16/26	Archive Date: 04/16/26

DOCKET NO. 201117-122426
DATE: April 16, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a right knee disability is dismissed.

Service connection for a heart disability is granted.

REMANDED

Service connection for hypertensive vascular disease (hypertension) is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran has been awarded service connection for a right knee disability throughout the course of this appeal. 

2. Resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his heart disability is related to his active duty service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for dismissal of the claim for service connection for a right knee disability have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (for AMA) § 19.55 (legacy).

2. The criteria for service connection for a heart disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1987 to April 1991 and from June 1995 to June 1998. His service decorations include the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon.

In the November 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on January 8, 2025.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran [or representative] at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 

However, because the Board is remanding the claim for service connection for hypertension, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of that claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

Dismissal

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed.  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 2014).  An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2015).  Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204.

Right Knee

In this matter, the Veteran sought service connection for a right knee disability in conjunction with this appeal on September 26, 2019. Prior to the adjudication of this matter in this appeal, the Veteran was granted service connection for his right knee disability in a December 2024 rating decision, which assigned an August 2024 effective date. The Veteran appealed the effective date, and a separate December 2025 Board Decision granted service connection for the Veteran's right knee disability as of his September 26, 2019, supplemental claim application (SCA). 

Thus, after review of the record, the Board finds that there is no error of fact or law which can be adjudicated in this matter. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (c). The Veteran has been granted service connection for his right knee disability for the entire period on appeal to the Board in this matter. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this issue, and it must be dismissed.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 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,
 granted service connection for his right knee disability for the entire period on appeal to the Board in this matter. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this issue, and it must be dismissed.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 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).

Heart Disorder

The Veteran has sought service connection for his valvular heart disease. See September 2019 SCA. The records show that the Veteran has a diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction. See February 2025 private medical record. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) showed the Veteran had complaint of chest-pain while on active duty. See November 1987 STR.

At the outset, the Board notes that there was no VA examination conducted prior to the issuance of the rating decision on appeal regarding the etiology of the Veteran's heart disorder. In March 2025, the Veteran submitted a private medical record wherein his treating physician noted that the Veteran had complaint of chest pain while in active duty and opined that the Veteran's symptoms were more likely than not related to his active duty as the Veteran did not have symptoms prior to active duty. The Veteran also testified in his January 2025 hearing that his chest pain and symptoms began while on his active duty service. 

In deciding the Veteran's claim, 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 the persuasive evidence of record is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant.

Here, the Board must resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and find that his heart disorder is related to his active duty service. The record contains a diagnosis of a heart disability, in-service treatment for chest pain, and a medical opinion which relates his current heart disorder to his in-service chest pain. The elements of service connection, then, have been met. Though the March 2025 private medical report does not indicate that a review of the record was performed or that the examiner provided a detailed rationale for his opinion, the Board is reminded that seeking to obtain negative evidence against the Veteran is prohibited by VA law. See Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305, 312 (2003). As such, service connection for a heart disorder is granted.

REASONS FOR REMAND

Hypertension

The Veteran has been diagnosed with hypertension. See January 2020 rating decision on appeal. The record contains private treatment records for the Veteran's hypertension. The Board is concerned that the complete private records regarding the treatment of the Veteran's hypertension have not been associated with the record. 

Additionally, there is no opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's hypertension contained in the record or obtained prior to the rating decision on appeal. Remand is necessary as the low threshold for obtaining such an examination has been surpassed in this case as the Veteran testified that his high blood pressure is related to his documented in-service instance of being given incorrect medication in-service. See August 1995 STR and McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). 

These pre-decisional duty to assist errors must be corrected on remand.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify by name, address, and dates of treatment or examination any relevant private medical treatment records for his hypertension. After securing the proper authorizations where necessary, arrange to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the Veteran that are not already on file. All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making two efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his representative.

2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension.
 Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify by name, address, and dates of treatment or examination any relevant private medical treatment records for his hypertension. After securing the proper authorizations where necessary, arrange to obtain all the records of treatment or examination from all the sources listed by the Veteran that are not already on file. All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making two efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his representative.

2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension. The claims file should be made available to the examiner for review.

The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's hypertension was incurred in, or due to, the Veteran's service.

The Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and continuity of symptomology should be recorded and considered.

A rationale for all opinions must be provided.

 

 

Ardie A. Bland

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Parrish, Alexis

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.