Citation Nr: 18149626 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/13/18 DOCKET NO. 11-30 363 DATE: November 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left thigh disorder is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for chronic sinusitis is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip strain is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee strain is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a February 2018 rating decision, service connection for a left thigh disorder was granted, resulting in a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. 2. In an August 2018 rating decision, service connection for chronic sinusitis was granted, resulting in a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. 3. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, a left hip strain had its onset in service. 4. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, a left knee strain had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a left thigh disorder is moot and is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. 2. The claim of entitlement to service connection for chronic sinusitis is moot and is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. 3. The criteria for service connection for a left hip strain are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 4. The criteria for service connection for a left knee strain are 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 served on active duty from March 1969 to March 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued in October 2009, June 2010, and May 2013 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Veteran requested initially that a Board hearing be scheduled in this matter. That request has been withdrawn. Neither he nor his representative has made a renewed request for a hearing. The Board notes that in May 2018 correspondence, the Veteran appeared to disagree with the rating and effective date assigned in a February 2018 rating decision, which granted service connection for a left thigh disability, and assigned a 10 percent rating, effective July 29, 2010. However, the statement expressing disagreement was not on the standardized VA Notice of Disagreement (NOD) form. In this regard, it is noted that, effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to provide that VA will accept an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) as a NOD only if it is submitted on a standard form, in cases where such a form is provided. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014) (now codified at 38 C.F.R. 19.23, 19.24, 20.201(a). For every case in which the AOJ provides, in connection with its decision, a form for the purpose of initiating an appeal, an NOD consists of a completed and timely submitted copy of that form. VA will not accept as an NOD an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the AOJ and a desire to contest the result that is submitted in any other format, including on a different VA form. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 (a). In the February 2018 notification that was attached to the February 2018 rating decision, the Veteran was provided with a VA Form 21-0958 (Notice of Disagreement). As the Veteran was provided with the correct form after the March 24, 2015, effective date of the new regulation, compliance with such procedure is required for a proper NOD. Therefore, the May 2018 correspondence cannot be accepted as a proper appeal. Dismissed Claims Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. In February 2018 and August 2018 rating decisions, subsequent to a Board remand, service connection for a left thigh disability and chronic sinusitis was granted. As such represents a full grant of said issues, they are no longer in appellate status, and there is no case or controversy presently before the Board. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, the appeals seeking entitlement to a left thigh disability and chronic sinusitis must be dismissed. Service Connection Left Hip and Left Knee Disorders The Veteran contends that his left hip and left knee disorders had their onset in service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a left hip strain and left knee strain that began during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Here, service treatment records document multiple reports of left hip pain and left knee pain, including from October to December 1970. The Board notes there are approximately 17 entries in the Veteran’s service treatment records for symptoms pertaining to his lower left side. In June 2011, the Veteran’s private physician, Dr. M.A.W., submitted a statement indicating that he had reviewed some of the Veteran’s service treatment records, and that he had been under his care for many years. He noted that the Veteran’s complaints began in service and that the Veteran’s symptoms of left thigh, left knee and left hip pain had been continuous since service. In December 2017, VA received a follow-up letter from Dr. M.A.W., which agin indicated that the Veteran’s chronic left-sided complaints began in service. In May 2017, the Veteran underwent a VA examination, during which the examiner diagnosed a left hip and left knee strain, and opined that such was not related to service, essentially on the basis that he had X-rays of the hip and knee since service separation that were normal, and that she felt his hip and knee pain was more consistent with radicular pain due to his lumbar arthritis. However, despite the VA examiner’s negative opinion, the Board notes that the record supports the Veteran’s contention that his left hip and left knee disorders began in service. In this regard, the Board notes the multiple complaints of left-sided symptomatology in the Veteran’s service treatment records, along with the statements of the Veteran’s private physician indicating that such symptoms have been continuous since service. Further, the record contains multiple statements from the Veteran in which he has consistently reported that he has suffered from left hip and left knee symptomatology since service. The Board finds his statements credible. Thus, as the evidence is at least in equipoise, the Board resolves reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor to find that his left hip and left knee strain had its onset in service. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran has indicated that his claimed low back disorder is related to his disorders of the left thigh, knee and hip, all of which are now service-connected. An opinion on whether his low back disorder is caused or aggravated by such disorders is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the claims file to an appropriate medical professional to offer an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s low back disorder. An examination of the Veteran is not required unless deemed necessary by the medical professional selected to offer the opinion. The claims file including a copy of this remand must be made available to, and be reviewed by, the examiner. The examiner should render an opinion as to the following: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s low back disorder is caused OR aggravated by his service-connected left hip, left thigh or left knee disorder? If aggravation is found, please state the degree of baseline severity before such aggravation. If the baseline level of disability cannot be established, the examiner must so state. All opinions expressed should be accompanied by supporting rationale. If the needed opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, court cases require the examiner explain why the opinion cannot be offered, and state whether the inability is due to the absence of any evidence or to the limits of scientific or medical knowledge. (Continued on the next page)   2. Readjudicate the appeal L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A.Z., Counsel