Citation Nr: 18148616 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 18-29 264 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a right hip disability, status post right hip replacement, is denied. Service connection for a right hip scar is denied. Service connection for tinnitus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that right hip osteoarthritis began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a right hip scar associated with right hip replacement surgery in June 2016, is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has tinnitus due to a disease or injury in service, to include noise exposure in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a right hip disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 2. The criteria for service connection for a right hip scar are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 3. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from June 1969 to May 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision. Notably, in an August 2018 letter, the Board notified that the Veteran that his June 2018 VA Form 9 may not have been an adequate substantive appeal to bring his right hip and tinnitus claims before the Board. The basis of that contention was that, in the body of the VA Form 9, the Veteran referenced a May 22, 2018 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) which addressed claims separate from the claims at issue here. However, upon review, the Board finds the VA Form 9 to be adequate as the Veteran clearly checked the box indicating that he was appealing all the issues listed on statements of the case (SOCs) and any SSOCs. This would include the May 2018 SOC which addressed the right hip and tinnitus claims. Therefore, those claims are properly before the Board. In addition, the Veteran’s representative was afforded an opportunity in July 2018 to submit an informal hearing presentation (IHP). It submitted one IHP as part of a separately perfected appeal addressing different issues, but it did not submit an IHP for the right hip and tinnitus claims. Because it was afforded this opportunity for an IHP prior to the Board’s August 2018 letter which questioned the adequacy of the VA Form 9, the Board will proceed with this appeal. Service Connection 1. Right hip disability, status post right hip replacement 2. Right hip scar Because these two claims arise out of the same factual basis, they will be addressed together. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a diagnosis of right hip osteoarthritis, status post right hip replacement, as well as a diagnosed right hip scar associated with the June 2016 hip replacement. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that these disabilities began during active service, or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Veteran’s service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment or diagnoses pertaining to the right hip. In addition, an April 1971 VA examination, conducted shortly after his discharge from service, was also negative for any relevant musculoskeletal complaints. Notably, the Veteran has not submitted any statements or other evidence to indicate that he experienced any event, injury or disease in service that might have caused his current right hip disabilities. His treatment records do not show any complaints of right hip pain until May 2012. During a January 2017 VA examination, he reported chronic right hip pain since 2010. In other words, there is no evidence to show that any relevant right hip findings were present prior to 2010, about 40 years after the Veteran’s discharge from service. The January 2017 VA examiner also concluded that the Veteran’s right hip disability, which included end-stage arthritis, was more likely the result of the natural aging process. For these reasons, the overall weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s right hip osteoarthritis, hip replacement, and associated scar are related to service. 3. Service connection for tinnitus The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a diagnosis of tinnitus, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Veteran’s service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment or diagnoses of tinnitus. During a January 2017 VA examination, the Veteran reported only a one-and-a-half year history of tinnitus. Therefore, tinnitus did not have its onset during service. The Veteran was awarded the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, and the Board has considered whether his tinnitus might otherwise be due to noise exposure from service. However, a January 2017 VA examiner found that tinnitus was not likely the result of service. She stated that the Veteran’s audiological evaluations showed a bilateral high frequency hearing loss that was due to presbycusis (hearing loss expected with aging). While the Veteran had normal hearing loss for VA purposes, she diagnosed a “clinical” hearing loss based upon the Veteran’s hearing thresholds at the 6 KHz frequency. She indicated that tinnitus was a symptom of that hearing loss. She also noted that while high intensity noise can cause permanent or progressive hearing loss, there were no retroactive hearing effects to be expected years after being exposed. There is no competent evidence to refute this opinion or to otherwise link tinnitus to service. To the extent that tinnitus was found to be associated with hearing loss, the Board notes that service connection for hearing loss has been denied, and therefore service connection for tinnitus as secondary to hearing loss is not warranted. The appeal is accordingly denied. In making this determination, the Board has considered the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) regarding benefit of the doubt, but there is not such a state of equipoise of positive and negative evidence to otherwise grant the Veteran’s claims. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Shamil Patel, Counsel