Knee decisions — 2001

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development of his claims, including obtaining medical records and scheduling VA examinations to assess the severity of his PTSD and right knee disability.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected bilateral knee disabilities do not warrant a rating in excess of 10 percent, as her symptoms are consistent with chondromalacia and she does not have instability or dislocation.

The Board has granted the appellant's claims for increased evaluations for his right knee disability and hemorrhoids, as well as service connection for a lumbosacral disorder. The effective dates are not specified in this decision.

The Board has determined that the veteran did not sustain a left knee injury in service and there is no credible evidence of PTSD stressors. Therefore, service connection for both conditions is denied.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD and residuals of injuries to each knee, finding that the evidence does not establish a valid stressor or sufficient medical evidence to support a diagnosis of PTSD.

The VA has granted a 10 percent rating for the veteran's service-connected left knee disorder, which is currently manifested by no compensable limitation of motion and subjective complaints of pain and giving-way. The disability does not meet criteria for higher ratings based on instability or ankylosis.

The Board has granted service connection for the left knee disabilities effective March 10, 1998, and denied an earlier effective date.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right knee disorder and prostate cancer were not incurred or aggravated by service, and thus denied both claims.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claims for increased ratings for pes planus and degenerative joint disease of the right knee have been denied as there is no evidence to support higher evaluations based on current disability levels.

The Board has determined that the veteran's left knee disability, including his status post total knee replacement, warrants a 60 percent rating due to severe painful motion.

The Board denied service connection for hernia, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spines, residuals of a left knee injury, and residuals of a right foot injury. The reasons given were that there was no evidence of preexisting conditions or aggravation during active duty.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right knee disability is causally related to an injury during active service and grants service connection for residuals of a torn meniscus of the right knee.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and effective dates have been denied. Service connection for diabetes mellitus was not established, and the right knee and left knee disabilities were rated based on their current manifestations.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for his right knee disability, finding that the evidence did not support such an increase.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral knee condition, involving a tear of the anterior body of the lateral meniscus, was incurred during active military service. The initial evaluations for low back disability and pes planus will be remanded for further review.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim and is granting service connection for a right knee disability, determined to be directly related to his active service.

The veteran's claims for service connection and increased ratings were denied. The RO granted service connection for the right shoulder, left hand fracture, and knee/lumbar spine conditions but did not assign a rating or effective date.

The Board denied service connection for high blood pressure and tinnitus, but granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The right knee and left knee disabilities were not addressed as they did not arise during active duty.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for degenerative joint disease of both knees, finding that there is no reasonable possibility that additional development would aid in substantiating his claim.