Reproduction of Document #2

 

Supplemental Statement of the Case – Department of Veterans Affairs, Portland Regional Office

Page 5                          Dated: 10/20/2000

Loss/limitation of motion was not previously documented) are considered to by separate symptomatology not duplicative or overlapping with symptomatology due to the postoperative patellectomy.  A separate evaluation of service connection is established for bilateral knee chronic synovitis and post traumatic degenerative arthritis with an evaluation of 20% effective April 13, 2000.  This condition is evaluated as 20% disabling from April 13, 2000,  (facts found) the date of testimony presented to warrant an additional VA examination.  A 20% evaluation is assigned when X-ray evidence shows involvement of two or more major joints (both knees) or two or more minor joint groups with occasional incapacitating exacerbations.  Since there is a likelihood of improvement, the assigned evaluation is not considered permanent and is subject to a future review examination. 

**webmasters note:  The following paragraph was typed in such a small font compared to the rest of the document that I decided to enlarge the font for easier reading.  We are unsure of the exact reasoning behind typing the font so small, as there is half of a page that is left blank in the original document,in other words, there was no reason for them to make the font as small as they did, unless perhaps they were trying to hide something?**

4.  The contention presented for an earlier effective date was that the BVA remand finding that new and material evidence had been submitted June 3, 1991, the claim must be re-adjudicated with out regard to the finality of the July 1984 RO decision.  The evidence submitted in July 1984, was a statement from a lay person, identifying himself as the veteran’s high school football coach for one year (1963-1964).  The coach stated he knew the veteran was not injured in any game or practice during that year.  The statement was new in that it had not been received before.  If it was considered material in address the veteran’s physical condition prior to entering on active duty, it was not persuasive to warrant a favorable finding.  This lay statement did not outweigh the veteran’s signed medical history on induction to the military service, August 24, 1965, stating “Knee-Soccer injury in high school.”  The probative evidence precluded a finding of reopening the claim and establishing service connection in 1984.  The veteran was properly informed of the decision an his appellate rights August 2, 1984.  His claim was reopened June 3, 1991.  There is no basis to establish an effective date of service connection prior to June 3, 1991.