BVA9504320 DOCKET NO. 93-11 303 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral knee disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Deborah W. Singleton, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran performed active duty from April 1991 to February 1992. This appeal arises from a November 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Denver, Colorado, Regional Office (RO) The Board observes that the veteran requested a photocopy of his service medical records, and that the RO did not provide a copy due to an inability to convert microfiche documents into hard copy. As hard copies of the veteran’s service medical records have since been added to the claims folder, the RO is requested to provide the veteran with a copy of his service medical records consistent with the provisions of the Privacy Act. REMAND In reviewing the claims folder, the Board notes that during service, the veteran received treatment and medication for knee joint strain and patella femoral syndrome. On December 5, 1991, a consultation was obtained, and the veteran was clinically assessed as having bilateral patella femoral pain syndrome. This condition, however, was not noted on a December 23, 1991 medical board examination report. In February 1992, the veteran was administratively separated from active duty for a disability not germane to this appeal. In June 1992, the veteran was accorded a VA compensation examination. The examiner noted that the veteran was last evaluated in 1992, when he was medically discharged from service. The examiner also noted that the medical records were not made available at the time of the evaluation. The diagnoses included "[b]ilateral knees: [n]ormal clinical examination and x-ray with discomfort." Subsequently received was a statement from John C. Yeakley, M.D., dated in November 1991, indicating that the veteran, while on active duty in the Marine Corps, was seen by him for knee problems. Dr. Yeakley stated that the veteran was suffering from "fairly straightforward peripatellar knee pain syndrome, probably . . . an element of chondromalacia," and suggested that knee surgery might be indicated. Also, a January 1993 medical report from Lawrence N. Varner, D.O., reflected a clinical impression of "early patella chondromalacia bilaterally." In Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377, 381 (1994), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that where the VA orders a medical examination pursuant to its statutory duty to assist a veteran who submits a well-grounded claim, such "examination must consider records of prior medical examinations and treatment in order to assure a fully informed examination." In this case, the record reflects that the June 1992 VA examination was conducted without considering the veteran's service medical records, and, hence, the veteran was not provided a "thorough and contemporaneous medical examination." Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 123 (1991); Waddell v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 454, 456 (1993). Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that additional development is necessary to ensure full compliance with the duty to assist requirements. The case is therefore REMANDED to the agency of original jurisdiction for the following: The veteran should be afforded a special VA orthopedic examination to determine the nature and extent of any bilateral knee disability now indicated. This examination should be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations, and all necessary tests and studies, including X-rays, should be accomplished and the clinical manifestations reported in detail. The claims folder, including the service medical records, must be made available to the examiner prior to evaluation for use in the study of this case. In reviewing the veteran's case, the examiner is further requested to offer an opinion as to whether the veteran's current bilateral knee disability is related to his inservice symptomatology. The examination report should be typed. Following completion of the requested development, the agency of original jurisdiction should again review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claim may now be granted. If not, he and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. The veteran need take no action unless otherwise notified. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate disposition of the issue on appeal. DEREK R. BROWN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under the 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).