Knee decisions — 2003

The Board has determined that the veteran's left knee disorder, which was pre-existing and manifested prior to service, increased in severity during active duty. Therefore, service connection for this condition is granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's left knee disability warrants a 30 percent rating, effective December 21, 1992. The January 1965 decision granting service connection for a scar on the left knee was not found to be clearly and unmistakably erroneous.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right knee disorder did not have its onset during service or result from disease or injury in service, and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the veteran's left knee strain with a torn meniscus is manifested by no more than mild subluxation or lateral instability, and thus does not warrant an evaluation in excess of 10 percent.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected left knee disability warrants a 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5259, and his varicose veins of the left leg warrant a 40 percent rating effective January 12, 1998. The veteran's claim for increased ratings is granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's lumbar spine degenerative joint disease and left knee patellar tendonitis are related to their active duty service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected left ankle disability, characterized by marked limitation of motion and severe degenerative arthritis, warrants a 20% rating.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for service connection of a right knee disability.

The RO denied the veteran's claims of service connection for various disabilities, including a left wrist disability, left arm disability (claimed as left tennis elbow), back disability, sub-deltoid bursitis of the left shoulder, and right ankle disability. The RO also granted service connection for degenerative joint disease of both knees with a 10 percent rating.

The Board denied service connection for a right knee disability in August 1989, and the moving party is challenging this decision on grounds of CUE. The motion alleges that there was no clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the decision.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right knee disability is related to his military service and grants entitlement to service connection.

The veteran's claims for service connection and increased rating have been remanded due to the need for additional development.

The veteran's service-connected right knee strain and degenerative joint disease of the left shoulder are both rated at their maximum evaluations. The claim for increased evaluation for injury to the left axillary nerve is granted, with a rating of 30 percent effective January 14, 2003.

The Board denied service connection for various conditions, including eye disorder, chest pain, headaches, sleep disorder, sore legs, joint pain (bilateral knee), and right ankle sprain with traumatic arthritis. The veteran's low back disability was rated at 10 percent, and his hearing loss and exercise-induced asthma were also rated at 0 percent.

The veteran's service-connected chondromalacia of the right knee and left knee, as well as bilateral plantar bursitis, have been granted increased ratings effective March 4, 2003.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service connection claim for residuals of a left knee injury is denied as there is no evidence of current disability attributable to service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected knee disabilities, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on current functional impairment.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a right knee disability secondary to his service-connected left knee disability, sinusitis, an acquired psychiatric disorder (other than PTSD), and post-traumatic stress disorder. The claim for increased rating of service-connected left knee disorder was also denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for clarification regarding whether the veteran intends to withdraw his claims of service connection for a back disorder and a bilateral ankle disorder. The RO must ensure all notification and development actions required by sections 3 and 4 of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act are fully complied with as to the issues on appeal.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for scheduling a Travel Board hearing and further development.