Citation Nr: 18157993 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 10-23 820 DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left hip joint replacement is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Veteran’s left hip joint replacement is related to his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 23, 1975 to September 28, 1981 under honorable conditions, and from September 29, 1981 to April 10, 1985 under other than honorable conditions. In regard to the latter period of service, a May 2004 administrative decision determined that such period of service is dishonorable for VA purposes. Therefore, no compensation based on that period of service is payable. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12 (2016). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) through an appeal of the November 2008 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO). Previously, the Board remanded this claim in May 2015 and in July 2016 for additional development. The Board then denied this claim in August 2017. The Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), and in June 2018, the Court issued a Joint Motion for Remand. The Court vacated the Board’s August 2017 decision and remanded the claim back to the Board. This matter is now back before the Board. The Veteran had requested a Travel board hearing before the Board in his June 2010 substantive appeal. In a December 2014 letter, the Veteran was informed that his requested hearing had been scheduled for January 15, 2015. The Veteran failed to appear for his scheduled hearing and has not provided good cause for his failure to appear. Therefore, the Veteran’s request for a Travel Board hearing remains withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability The Veteran contends that his left hip disability was caused by parachute jumping while in service. See Appellate Brief dated December 2018. He states that he began experiencing pain in his hip and that doctors at the Atlanta VA Treatment Center told him that they believed his years of jumping out of airplanes with the 82nd Airborne Division is the major reason that he needed a left hip replacement. See VA 21-4138 dated June 2008; VA 21-526 dated May 2008; VA Examination dated July 2015. A veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from a personal injury suffered or diseased contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: “(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service” – the so-called “nexus” requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report a contemporaneous medical diagnosis that was told to him by his physician as well as the symptoms he experienced due to his hip disability. See Davidson, 581 F.3d at 1316. The Board further finds these statements to be credible and to hold significant probative weight because the statements are consistent throughout the evidence of record. See VA 21-4138 dated June 2008; VA 21-526 dated May 2008; VA Examinations dated July 2015 and August 2016; VA Treatment Records dated April 2008; Non-Governmental Medical Treatment Records dated June 2008 and July 2008. The Veteran had a left hip joint replacement in June 2008. See VA Examination dated July 2015; Non-Governmental Medical Treatment Records dated June 2008. This constitutes a present disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As for an in-service event or incurrence, the Veteran contends that he was a parachutist with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg. See VA 21-526 dated May 2008. The Veteran’s DD-214 states that the Veteran received a Parachute Badge while in service. See DD-214. The Veteran also reportedly told a friend, D.G., that he used to jump with the 82nd Airborne as well. See Letter from D.G. dated June 2008. The Board finds that the evidence supports the Veteran’s contention that he did parachute jumping with the 82nd Airborne and that this constitutes an in-service event. As to nexus, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in July 2015 and an addendum opinion was obtained in August 2016. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s left hip disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. See VA Examination dated July 2015. His rationale was that the Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints of hip pain or problems and that the Veteran did not start complaining of hip pain until March 2005. See VA Examination dated July 2015. During the examination, the Veteran contended that he had been experiencing left hip pain every so often, but that it became significantly worse in 2006 and that is why he sought treatment. See VA Examination dated July 2015. An addendum opinion was obtained in August 2016 to address whether there was a nexus between the Veteran’s hip disability and parachute jumping. The VA examiner found that it was less likely than not that the left hip disability was caused by or the result of parachute jumping. See VA Examination dated August 2016. His rationale was that the service treatment records are silent as to any issues with the Veteran’s left hip and that while the Veteran is in possession of the Parachutist Badge, his jump hours are not included in the record. He also opined that medical research shows that injuries from parachute jumps do not require over 20 years to develop. He states that injuries due to parachute jumping would have manifested earlier. See VA Examination dated August 2016. The Board finds that both of the VA examiner opinions are inadequate. The examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s contention that he has experienced pain for years and failed to address whether there was a continuing symptomatology since service. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not include any notations of hip pain or problems. See generally Service Treatment Records. The Veteran submitted a lay statement from C.N. in which C.N. testified that he has experienced pain, and specifically hip pain, for a long time. See Letter from C.N. dated June 2008. The Board finds the letter to hold probative value because it is consistent with the Veteran’s continual complaints of hip pain. The Veteran’s medical records also show continuing complaints of hip pain since at least 2005. See Non-Governmental Medical Treatment Records dated June 2008; VA Treatment Records dated February 2007. A friend of the Veteran, D.G., also submitted a buddy letter in which D.G. stated that he saw the Veteran limping and found out that the Veteran used to parachute jump with the 82nd Airborne. D.G. stated that he is a veteran as well and that he recognized that this type of injury can arise from the rigors of jumping. See Letter from D.G. dated June 2008. D.G. also stated that he has seen the Veteran’s hip condition deteriorate over the years. See Letter from D.G. dated June 2008. The Board finds that the letter from D.G. holds some probative weight because D.G. can speak to the effects of the Veteran’s condition that he witnessed. However, D.G. is not competent to provide a nexus opinion because the etiology of the Veteran’s hip disability is medically complex and must be addressed by someone with the requisite medical expertise and training. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). In looking at the evidence of record, the Veteran’s lay statements and his DD-214 support the Veteran’s contention that his left hip disability was caused, at least in part, by parachute jumping. A disability does not need to be solely caused by service to warrant service connection. Furthermore, a claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue material to the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, the claim will be granted. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). Therefore, the Board finds that resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, service connection for the Veteran’s left hip disability is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Bognar, Associate Counsel