Back to BVA DecisionsGRANTEDService Branch NAVY Special Benefit NO SPECIAL BENEFIT Docket No. 251031-607588
KNEE IMPAIRMENT OF
L. CHU · 2026 · Case ID: A26038430
Summary
The veteran, who served in the Navy from July 1987 to June 1994, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral knee degenerative arthritis. The Board reviewed new and relevant evidence submitted by the veteran's wife in September 2024, which stated the veteran complained of knee pain since service and used various knee supports and medications. The Board found this evidence sufficient to readjudicate the claims. The veteran reported bilateral knee issues starting during service, with specific complaints noted in August 1989 for the left knee. The AOJ had previously made favorable findings of current bilateral knee degenerative arthritis, which the Board is bound by. The evidence presented a conflict: a May 2023 VA examination opined the bilateral knee conditions were less likely than not related to service, citing lack of chronic in-service injury documentation and recent onset of complaints. However, a January 2024 private medical opinion concluded it was at least as likely as not that the bilateral knee condition was incurred due to military wear and tear and Navy duties. The Board found the evidence in approximate balance, applying the benefit of the doubt to grant service connection for both left and right knee degenerative arthritis.
Rationale
New and relevant evidence submitted by wife; Evidence in approximate balance; Benefit of the doubt applied
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26038430 Decision Date: 04/24/26 Archive Date: 04/24/26 DOCKET NO. 251031-607588 DATE: April 24, 2026 ORDER New and relevant evidence having been received, the claim of service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis other than post-traumatic (left knee disability) is readjudicated. New and relevant evidence having been received, the claim of service connection for right knee degenerative arthritis other than post-traumatic (right knee disability) is readjudicated. Entitlement to service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis is granted. Entitlement to service connection for right knee degenerative arthritis is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Evidence received since the April 2024 rating decision is new and relevant to the issue of entitlement to service connection for left knee disability. 2. Evidence received since the April 2024 rating decision is new and relevant to the issue of entitlement to service connection for right knee disability. 3. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to the question of whether the Veteran's left knee disability is etiologically related to his active service. 4. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to the question of whether the Veteran's right knee disability is etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and relevant evidence sufficient to readjudicate the claim for entitlement service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis has been received. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5108. 2. New and relevant evidence sufficient to readjudicate the claim for entitlement service connection for right knee degenerative arthritis has been received. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5108. 3. The criteria for service connection for left knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1987 to June 1994. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2025 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which is the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). In the October 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2025 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. New and Relevant Evidence In order to readjudicate a previously disallowed claim, new and relevant evidence must be received. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. VA regulations provide that a claimant who disagrees with a prior VA decision may file a supplemental claim any time after the AOJ issues notice of a decision, regardless of whether the claim is pending or has become finally adjudicated. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the AOJ will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. If new and relevant evidence is not presented or secured, the AOJ will issue a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence to readjudicate the claim. In determining whether new and relevant evidence is presented or secured, VA will consider any evidence received after VA issued notice of a that a claimant who disagrees with a prior VA decision may file a supplemental claim any time after the AOJ issues notice of a decision, regardless of whether the claim is pending or has become finally adjudicated. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the AOJ will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. If new and relevant evidence is not presented or secured, the AOJ will issue a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence to readjudicate the claim. In determining whether new and relevant evidence is presented or secured, VA will consider any evidence received after VA issued notice of a decision on the claim and while the evidentiary record was closed. Id. New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim. Relevant evidence includes evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. For VA to readjudicate the claim, the evidentiary record must include new and relevant evidence that was not of record as of the date of notice of the prior decision. Upon receipt of a substantially complete supplemental claim, VA's duty to assist in the gathering of evidence under § 3.159 of this part is triggered and includes any such assistance that may help secure new and relevant evidence as defined in paragraph (a) of 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 to complete the supplemental claim application. Id. 1. Whether new and relevant evidence has been submitted to readjudicate the Veteran's claim for service connection for left knee disability. 2. Whether new and relevant evidence has been submitted to readjudicate the Veteran's claim for service connection for right knee disability. In September 2024, the Veteran submitted a supplemental claim from which this appeal arises. The April 2024 rating decision confirmed and continued previous denials of the Veteran's claims for service connection for left and right knee disabilities finding that new and relevant evidence had not been submitted and that there was no link between the Veteran's service and his left or right knee disability. The Board finds, however, that in September 2024 the Veteran submitted new and relevant evidence via a statement from his wife M.P. In the letter, his wife commented that she met the Veteran in November 1991 while he was still on active duty, and he has complained to her for as long as she had known him about the pain, discomfort, and weakness in his knees. She stated that they had purchased numerous knee braces, knee pads, and anti-inflammatory medications through the years to deal with the issue and that he had since his time in service. This evidence is new and tends to prove a matter at issue herein, and is therefore relevant. Thus, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence sufficient to readjudicate the claims has been submitted. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for right knee disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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). To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must persuasively stand against a finding that the evidence is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal" to the evidence that supports the claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). 3. Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability. 4. Entitlement to service connection for right knee disability. The Veteran asserts that he experiences bilateral knee pain that arose during or as a result of his active service. During a December 2022 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his bilateral knee condition began during active military service as an injury. During a January 2024 VA examination, the Veteran reported the onset of his knee condition was in 1990 while serving on an aircraft carrier, which was constantly moving. He stated both knees started hurting and he tried some knee supports. In a February 2023 statement, the Veteran recalled having issues and 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). 3. Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability. 4. Entitlement to service connection for right knee disability. The Veteran asserts that he experiences bilateral knee pain that arose during or as a result of his active service. During a December 2022 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his bilateral knee condition began during active military service as an injury. During a January 2024 VA examination, the Veteran reported the onset of his knee condition was in 1990 while serving on an aircraft carrier, which was constantly moving. He stated both knees started hurting and he tried some knee supports. In a February 2023 statement, the Veteran recalled having issues and getting his first knee braces while in service and having taken pain medications since that time. Here, in the April 2024 rating decision, the AOJ made favorable findings that the Veteran has current diagnoses of bilateral knee degenerative arthritis. The Board is bound by favorable findings made by the AOJ. 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a). Service treatment records dated August 1989 reflect that the Veteran was treated for left knee soreness. X-ray of the knee revealed slightly increased soft tissue density in the suprapatellar bursa which may represent a knee effusion. The remaining issue, then, is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's current disability and his in-service injury. On this question, the evidence is mixed. In the first place, the VA medical nexus opinion of record concludes that the bilateral knee disability is not related to the Veteran's in-service injury. A May 2023 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's current left knee condition was less likely than not incurred in and/or caused by left ankle injury during military service. The examiner noted that there was insufficient evidence in the service or emergency treatment records to document any kind of chronic injury on active duty service and very little clinical information about knee problems until relatively recently. The examiner further noted that the injury during service was only acute as the Veteran denied knee problems when he was on active duty at separation and has not had documented knee complaints until relatively recently. The examiner also opined that the Veteran's current right knee condition was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected condition because there is no clinical objective evidence of a right knee condition caused by the left knee condition. Weighing against this opinion, the Veteran submitted a medical nexus opinion dated January 2024, which concludes that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's current bilateral knee condition was incurred in or caused by activity duty service as due to military wear and tear on both knees causing injury to both knees. The examiner noted that the Veteran had no issues related to knees prior to military service and Navy military duties caused the Veteran to have complications with his knees later on in life. (Continued on the next page) ? Considering the record as a whole, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the Veteran's claim is in approximate balance. Although the prior VA examiner concluded that the Veteran's bilateral knee disability is not related to the in-service injury, this opinion is balanced by countervailing medical nexus opinion concluding that the Veteran's claimed disability is related to his service. Therefore, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for bilateral knee disability, currently diagnosed as degenerative arthritis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. J. In 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.