KNEE IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The veteran, who served from May 1992 to February 1997, appeals the denial of increased disability ratings for bilateral knee conditions and a right knee scar. The veteran sought ratings higher than the 10 percent granted for patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of flexion in each knee, and a compensable rating for limitation of extension and a right knee scar. The Board reviewed the September 2024 VA examination findings, which indicated bilateral knee flexion limited to 105 degrees and extension to 5 degrees after repetitive use, with pain causing functional loss. The Board found that these findings did not meet the criteria for ratings higher than 10 percent for flexion or any compensable rating for extension, as the limitations did not more nearly approximate the degrees required for higher evaluations. For the right knee scar, the Board found it measured 0.15 sq. cm., was well-healed, asymptomatic, and did not cause functional impairment, thus not meeting the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7802. The veteran also appealed for earlier effective dates for the granted service connections, but the Board found the September 11, 2024, effective date assigned by the RO was the earliest possible, as no prior claim or appeal for these conditions was found between the July 2013 denial and the September 2024 claim.

Rationale

September 2024 VA exam showed flexion limited to 105 degrees.; Evidence persuasively weighs against a rating higher than 10 percent.; Higher ratings require flexion limited to 30 degrees or less.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040455
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 251223-617580
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of flexion, left knee, is denied.

Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of flexion, right knee, is denied.

Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of extension, left knee, is denied.

Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of extension, right knee, is denied.

Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for linear superior lateral and linear superior medial right knee scar, residual of diagnostic arthroscopy, is denied.

Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 11, 2024 for the grant of service connection for left knee disability is denied.

Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 11, 2024 for the grant of service connection for right knee disability is denied.

Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 11, 2024 for the grant of service connection for right knee scar is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome ("left knee disability") was not manifested by limitation of flexion to 45 degrees or less. 

2. The Veteran's right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome ("right knee disability") was not manifested by limitation of flexion to 45 degrees or less. 

3. The Veteran's left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome was not manifested by limitation of extension to 10 degrees or more. 

4. The Veteran's right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome was not manifested by limitation of extension to 10 degrees or more. 

5. The Veteran's linear superior lateral and linear superior medial right knee scar, residual of diagnostic arthroscopy ("right knee scar") measures 0.15 sq. cm. and is not painful, unstable, or deep.

6. In an unappealed July 2013 rating decision, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) denied service connection for bilateral knee condition' the July 2013 rating decision is final.

7. No claims to reopen the issue of service connection for left or right knee disability was received prior to the September 11, 2024.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of flexion have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.59, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260.

2. The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of flexion have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.59, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260.

3. The criteria for a compensable initial rating for left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of extension have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.59, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261.

4. The criteria for a compensable initial rating for right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of extension have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.59, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261.

5. The criteria for a compensable initial rating for right knee scar have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.14, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802.

6. The criteria for an earlier effective date prior to September 11, 2024, for the grant of service connection for left knee disability have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110(a),
 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.59, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261.

5. The criteria for a compensable initial rating for right knee scar have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.14, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802.

6. The criteria for an earlier effective date prior to September 11, 2024, for the grant of service connection for left knee disability have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110(a), 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400.

7. The criteria for an earlier effective date prior to September 11, 2024, for the grant of service connection for right knee disability have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110(a), 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400.

8. The criteria for an earlier effective date prior to September 11, 2024, for the grant of service connection for right knee scar have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110(a), 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1992 to February 1997.

The matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2024 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the December 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 December 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (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. 

Increased Rating

Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the facts presented to VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) at 38 C.F.R. Part 4.  The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations.  38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1.

In evaluating the severity of a particular disability, it is essential to consider its history.  38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995).  Whether the issue is one of an initial rating or an increased rating, separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found, a practice known as "staged" ratings.  See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

The evaluation of the same disability under several diagnostic codes, known as pyramiding, must be avoided; separate ratings may be assigned for distinct disabilities resulting from the same injury only where the symptomatology for one condition is not duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; see also Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994).

Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability should be resolved in favor of the claimant.  38 C.F.R. § 4.
 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

The evaluation of the same disability under several diagnostic codes, known as pyramiding, must be avoided; separate ratings may be assigned for distinct disabilities resulting from the same injury only where the symptomatology for one condition is not duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; see also Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994).

Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability should be resolved in favor of the claimant.  38 C.F.R. § 4.3.  Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation.  Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.  38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

When evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities based on limitation of motion, 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 requires consideration of functional loss caused by pain or other factors listed in that section that could occur during flare-ups or after repeated use and, therefore, not be reflected on range-of-motion testing. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 requires consideration also be given to less movement than normal, more movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement.  See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 44 (2011).  Nonetheless, even when the background factors listed in § 4.40 or 4.45 are relevant when evaluating a disability, the rating is assigned based on the extent to which motion is limited, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a; a separate or higher rating under § 4.40 or 4.45 itself is not appropriate.  See Thompson v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[I]t is clear that the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran's disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria.").

Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, painful motion is a factor to be considered with any form of arthritis; however, 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 is not limited to disabilities involving arthritis.  See Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011).

The Veteran contends that his currently assigned disability ratings do not accurately reflect the level of severity of his bilateral knee disability.

1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of flexion, left knee.

2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of flexion, right knee.

3. Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of extension, left knee.

4. Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for patellofemoral pain syndrome with limitation of extension, right knee.

The December 2024 rating decision granted service connection for patellofemoral pain syndrome of the bilateral knees, with an initial rating of 10 percent for each knee based on limitation of flexion and a noncompensable rating for each knee based on limitation extension.  The AOJ assigned an effective date of September 11, 2024 for the grants of service connection.  As such, the rating period on appeal begins on September 11, 2024.

Limitation of flexion of the leg is rated under C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260.  Under Diagnostic Code 5260, a noncompensable rating is warranted for flexion limited to 60 degrees.  A 10 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 45 degrees.  A 20 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 30 degrees.  A 30 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 15 degrees.  38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260.  Diagnostic Code 5260 was not amended in February 2021.

Limitation of extension of the leg is rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261.  Under Diagnostic Code 5261, a noncompensable rating
 5260, a noncompensable rating is warranted for flexion limited to 60 degrees.  A 10 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 45 degrees.  A 20 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 30 degrees.  A 30 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 15 degrees.  38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260.  Diagnostic Code 5260 was not amended in February 2021.

Limitation of extension of the leg is rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261.  Under Diagnostic Code 5261, a noncompensable rating is warranted for extension limited to 5 degrees. A 10 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 10 degrees.  A 20 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 15 degrees.  A 30 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 20 degrees.  A 40 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 30 degrees.  A 50 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 45 degrees.  38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261.  Diagnostic Code 5261 was not amended in February 2021.

Normal range of motion of the knee is from 0 degrees of extension to 140 degrees of flexion.  38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Plate II.

When rating based on limitation of motion, a separate rating may be assigned for knee disabilities based on limitation of flexion as well as limitation of extension of the knee if both pathologies exist.  Specifically, VA's General Counsel has held that separate ratings may be warranted for limitation of flexion and extension when the criteria for compensable ratings are met for such limitation under Diagnostic Codes 5260 and 5261.  VAOPGCPREC 9-2004 (2004).  Likewise, separate ratings may be assigned based on limitation of motion, as well as instability or subluxation, or meniscal pathology, if found.  However, a separate rating can only be assigned where additional compensable symptomatology is shown that is not duplicative of that used to assign another rating.  38 C.F.R. § 4.14; VAOPGCPREC 09-04 (2004), 69 Fed. Reg. 59990 (2004); VAOPGCPREC 23-97 (1997), 62 Fed. Reg. 63604 (1997); VAOPGCPREC 9-98 (1998), 63 Fed. Reg. 56704 (1998); Lichtenfels v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 484 (1991).  Finally, episodes of "locking" may also warrant a separate rating for the knee.  See VACOPGCPREC 23-97 (Multiple Ratings for Knee Disability).

During a September 2024 VA examination, the Veteran reported bilateral knee pain.  Pain was primarily to the anterior knee of both knees.  He used heating pad and other conservative care measures and had ongoing orthopedics and physical therapy.  He denied flare-ups of the knees.  He described difficulty with walking long distances, standing for long periods of time, kneeling on the ground, gardening, or playing with kids, and was unable to perform high impact activities such as running and jumping.  Going up inclines and stairs was difficult and very painful.  He denied any history of instability or recurrent subluxation of the knee or frequent effusion of the knee.

On initial range of motion (ROM) testing, the Veteran's bilateral knee flexion was limited to, at most, 115 degrees and his extension was normal to 0 degrees.  Passive ROM was same as active ROM.  There was evidence of pain with weight-bearing, active motion, and passive motion, and pain caused functional loss.  The Veteran was limited in running, kneeling, crawling, squatting, prolonged standing, prolonged walking, and high-impact activities.  There was objective evidence of crepitus and localized tenderness to palpation on the anterior knee, mild in severity.  The Veteran was able to perform repetitive-use testing with at least three repetitions and there was no additional ROM after three repetitions.  The examiner noted that pain caused functional loss after repeated use over time and estimated the bilateral knee flexion would be limited to 105 degrees and extension limited to 5 degrees after repeated use over time.  There were no additional factors contributing to disability.  There was no muscle atrophy.  No ankylosis; malunion of the tibia and fibula; medial tibial stress syndrome or shin splints; or acquired traumatic genu recurvatum were noted
-impact activities.  There was objective evidence of crepitus and localized tenderness to palpation on the anterior knee, mild in severity.  The Veteran was able to perform repetitive-use testing with at least three repetitions and there was no additional ROM after three repetitions.  The examiner noted that pain caused functional loss after repeated use over time and estimated the bilateral knee flexion would be limited to 105 degrees and extension limited to 5 degrees after repeated use over time.  There were no additional factors contributing to disability.  There was no muscle atrophy.  No ankylosis; malunion of the tibia and fibula; medial tibial stress syndrome or shin splints; or acquired traumatic genu recurvatum were noted.  There was no recurrent subluxation or persistent instability, ligament tear (sprain), or meniscus (semilunar cartilage) condition.  He did not use any assistive devices as a normal mode of locomotion.  

During the period on appeal, the Veteran has been in receipt of a 10 percent disability rating for each knee disability under Diagnostic Code 5261 for limitation of flexion.

The evidence of record reflects that the Veteran's left knee limitation of motion was limited to, at most, flexion to 105 degrees and extension to 5 degrees, after repetitive use over time.  

Accordingly, after considering all the medical evidence of record and the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms, the Board finds the evidence persuasively weighs against an initial rating in excess of 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5260 for limitation of flexion.

A higher 20 percent rating contemplates flexion to 30 degrees.  In light of the physical examination during this period, the Board is unable to conclude that the Veteran's flexion more nearly approximated limitation to 30 degrees warranting a higher rating.

Additionally, the evidence reflects that the Veteran's bilateral knee extension was limited to, at most, 5 degrees.  Accordingly, a compensable disability rating is not warranted for limitation of extension as the evidence does not show additional compensable symptomatology.  In this regard, the Board notes consideration of his functional loss to include repeated use over a period of time and the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms; however, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding the Veteran's limitation of extension meets or nearly approximates the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 5261 at any point during the period on appeal.  Accordingly, a compensable disability rating for limitation of extension is not warranted.  

In making this determination, the Board considered the Veteran's reports of symptoms including pain during the September 2024 VA examination and limited ability to run, kneel, crawl, squat, or with prolonged standing or walking or with high-impact activities during the September 2024 examination.  However, the degree of additional limitation reflected by those statements would not result in limitation of motion more nearly approximating the degrees of limited extension or flexion, which is required for the next higher ratings.  In this regard, the VA examinations include all required ROM measurements, including ROM estimates after repeated use over time.  The Veteran denied any flare-ups.  Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017); Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016).  This examination shows that the Veteran would have an additional 5 to 10 degrees of loss due to functional limitations, which is already contemplated in the currently assigned ratings.  

In sum, the Board finds that the Veteran's bilateral knee limitation of motion does not warrant an initial rating in excess of 10 percent based on limited flexion or a separate compensable rating based on limited extension.

5. Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for linear superior lateral and linear superior medial right knee scar, residual of diagnostic arthroscopy.

The Veteran's right knee scar is evaluated pursuant to Diagnostic Code 7802.

VA amended the criteria for evaluating skin disabilities effective August 13, 2018.  These new regulations apply to all applications for benefits received by VA or that are pending before the AOJ on or after August 13, 2018.  

Since August 13, 2018, Diagnostic Code 7802 is for burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage.  38 C.F.R. § 4.118. 

The Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the assignment of a compensable evaluation under Diagnostic Code 7802 because the Veteran's right knee scar is not manifest by an area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater.

The Veteran underwent a VA scar examination in September 2024.  The examiner noted
 the AOJ on or after August 13, 2018.  

Since August 13, 2018, Diagnostic Code 7802 is for burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage.  38 C.F.R. § 4.118. 

The Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the assignment of a compensable evaluation under Diagnostic Code 7802 because the Veteran's right knee scar is not manifest by an area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater.

The Veteran underwent a VA scar examination in September 2024.  The examiner noted that the Veteran had a right knee diagnostic arthroscopy in 1995 resulting in two currently visible scars consistent with this surgery.  Scars appeared to have faded considerably and were difficult to identify.  The scars were well healed, had been stable, and were without symptoms.

The examiner indicated that the Veteran's right knee scar was not painful or unstable with frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar.  The scars measured 0.5 by 0.1 cm. (superior lateral right knee) and 1 by 0.1 cm. (superior medial right knee), covering 0.15 sq. cm. in total.  Further, the examiner found that the Veteran's right knee scar did not cause any functional impairment.

As this does not cover an area of at least 144 square inches (929 square centimeters), a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7802 is not warranted.  38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802.  

The Board has also considered the other diagnostic codes pertaining to scars.  However, the Veteran's right knee scar is not of the head, face, or neck, is not deep and non-linear, and is not associated with underlying soft tissue damage.  Moreover, the Veteran's right knee scar is not unstable or painful.  Therefore, Diagnostic Codes 7800, 7801, and 7804 are inapplicable.  Finally, the evidence of record shows there are no other disabling effects not considered in the evaluation provided under Diagnostic Codes 7800-7804.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran believes that the disability on appeal is more severe than the assigned disability evaluation reflects.  Moreover, the Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms and these reports are credible.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  However, the Veteran has reported any pain from his right knee scar.  Finally, the evidence does not show that his right knee scar is manifested by an area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater.

In conclusion, the Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the Veteran's claim for a compensable initial rating for right knee scar.  As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against a compensable rating, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Earlier Effective Date

Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found but shall be no earlier than the date of receipt of the application therefor.  38 U.S.C. § 5110(a).  The statutory provision is implemented by regulation, which provides that the effective date for an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later.  38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

A claimant may indicate a desire to file a claim by submitting an intent to file a claim to VA.  38 C.F.R. § 3.155(b).  Upon receipt of the intent to file, VA will furnish the claimant with the appropriate form.  Id. If VA receives a complete application form within a year, it will consider the complete claim filed as of the date of the intent to file.  Id.

6. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 11, 2024 for the grant of service connection for left knee disability.

7. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 11, 2024 for the grant of service connection for right knee disability.


3.400.

A claimant may indicate a desire to file a claim by submitting an intent to file a claim to VA.  38 C.F.R. § 3.155(b).  Upon receipt of the intent to file, VA will furnish the claimant with the appropriate form.  Id. If VA receives a complete application form within a year, it will consider the complete claim filed as of the date of the intent to file.  Id.

6. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 11, 2024 for the grant of service connection for left knee disability.

7. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 11, 2024 for the grant of service connection for right knee disability.

8. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 11, 2024 for the grant of service connection for right knee scar.

The Veteran seeks an effective date, prior to September 11, 2024, for the grant of service connection for bilateral knee patellofemoral pain syndrome and linear superior lateral and linear superior medial right knee scar, residual of diagnostic arthroscopy.

By way of procedural background, in a July 2013 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for patellofemoral pain syndrome of bilateral knees.  VA received no appeal, and no new and material evidence was received within one year of this decision.  Accordingly, this decision became final.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.1103.

On September 11, 2024, VA received a VA Form 20-0995 for service connection for patellofemoral pain syndrome of bilateral knees.  In the December 2024 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for patellofemoral pain syndrome of bilateral knees and for linear superior lateral and linear superior medial right knee scar, as secondary to the service-connected right knee disability, assigned an effective date of September 11, 2024, the date of receipt of the claim.  The Veteran filed the notice of disagreement contesting the effective date of the grants of service connection.  

The Board does not find that an earlier effective date is warranted as the earliest possible effective date has already been assigned.  The record does not reflect that VA received a claim to reopen service connection for knee condition prior to September 11, 2024.  The Board has reviewed the documents contained in the claims file dated between the last final denial in July 2013 and his September 2024 claim; however, there is no evidence that the Veteran filed a timely appeal with the July 2013 rating decision, nor is there any document that can be construed as a request to reopen the claim for service connection for knee condition.

(Continued on the next page)

?

Neither the Veteran nor his representative have presented any argument as to what effective date is being sought or why an earlier effective date is warranted for PTSD.

In sum, under the applicable earlier effective date regulations, September 11, 2024, is the earliest date for the award of service connection for bilateral knee disability and any other disability associated with the bilateral knee disability.  38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.  As such, the Veteran's claims for an earlier effective date are denied.

 

 

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.