Knee decisions — 2023

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for a left knee disability, right ankle disability, and low back disability due to insufficient evidence of current diagnoses.

The Veteran's right knee disability is rated at 10 percent for limitation of extension, and his left knee disability is rated at 10 percent for limitation of extension. The claims for higher ratings based on flexion or instability are denied.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss and knee disabilities have been denied. The Board found no evidence linking the current conditions to his active service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current arthritis of the bilateral ankles, left foot, and right foot disabilities are related to service. The low back disability and right knee disability have been remanded for further development.

The Board denied service connection for right and left knee disabilities, finding no evidence of a nexus to service-connected conditions.,A separate rating of 10 percent was granted for the Veteran's marching fracture of the left tibia.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical evidence regarding the etiology of the Veteran's left knee disorder. The Veteran is requested to provide a new medical opinion.

The Veteran's patellofemoral pain syndrome of the right knee is related to service and has been granted.

The Veteran's left knee disability has been rated at 20 percent since October 28, 2011. The appeal period before the Board begins on May 25, 2016. A separate 10 percent rating for limitation of extension is granted from May 25, 2016. A separate 20 percent rating for instability is also granted from May 25, 2016.

The Board has granted service connection for DDD of the lumbosacral spine and bilateral knee strain, as well as a TDIU from May 26, 2017. The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder alone precluded him from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board has denied service connection for a back disorder, right knee disorder, left knee disorder, bilateral shin splints, and right ankle disorder. The Veteran's claims were not supported by the medical evidence of record.,Service connection was also denied for dyshidrotic eczema.

The Board has remanded the cases for further development to assess the current severity of the Veteran's left knee, low back, and left inguinal hernia disabilities.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for a right knee disability and entitlement to TDIU due to service-connected disabilities. The claims are being remanded because of issues with proper notice regarding the VA examination, particularly related to the right knee disability.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for left and right knee disabilities due to inadequate recent medical evidence, requiring a new examination.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for right knee, left knee, and right wrist conditions due to inadequate examination in prior decisions.

The Board has denied a higher rating for the Veteran's left knee disability, finding that it does not meet the criteria for a rating higher than 10 percent.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD, bilateral knee conditions, and a low back condition due to the lack of evidence linking these conditions to service. The Veteran's claims were based on his active duty service.

The Veteran is granted a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) since March 7, 2018. The Board found the evidence at least approximately balanced and thus grants TDIU from that date.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a need for updated VA treatment records and an examination of the Veteran's right knee disability, as his last examination was over three years ago.

The Board has remanded the claims of service connection for left and right knee disabilities due to inadequate examination and failure to address preexisting condition allegations.

The Veteran's right and left knee disabilities have not met the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable diagnostic codes, and these issues are being remanded for further development.