BVA Case 12-885: Back

In doing so,the Board found that the appellant's military occupational specialty and personnel records .

Code,the Board found the appellant's allegations that he sustained in-service injuries consistent with the circumstances of his military service,and instructed the VA examiner to assume the credibility of the [v]eteran's complaints of in[-]service injuries to his feet,right knee, and back,as they are not now in dispute.

Notwithstanding x-ray results,which revealed slight degenerative changes, and a diagnosis of mild,chronic degenerative changes,the examiner 3 declined to provide a nexus opinion because he stated there is no current clinical or radiological diagnos[i]s of .

Because the June 2010 examiner appeared to provide conflicting statements concerning the appellant's right knee,and declined to provide a nexus opinion regarding either disability,the Board determined that the record lacked sufficient information for it to determine whether the appellant's bilateral foot and right knee conditions are related to service,and referred the case to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)for an independent medical expert opinion.

However,with review of the records, I see no supporting evidence that there was a nexus of injury of the right knee in association with his military service.

In the November 2011 decision here on appeal, the Board found probative and relied upon the October 2011 VHA expert opinion to grant disability compensation for a low back disorder,and deny disability compensation for a bilateral foot and right knee disorder.

However,the Board found the VHA expert opinion probative on the issue whether there is a nexus between the appellant's in-service injuries and his current bilateral foot and right knee disability, stating that the opinion was based on a review of the claims file,which included medical evidence and the written submissions of the [v]eteran and his representative, and acknowledgment by the examiner that the appellant's lay evidence of in-service injury to the feet and right knee was credible.

In addition,the Board found that secondary service connection for a bilateral foot condition was not warranted,stating that there was no medical opinion contrary to the 2011 VHA expert's opinion that the appellant's service-connected diabetes mellitus did not aggravate or permanently worsen the appellant's foot disorder.