Citation Nr: 18160834 Decision Date: 12/27/18 Archive Date: 12/27/18 DOCKET NO. 16-03 470 DATE: December 27, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the U.S. Navy from October 1995 to June 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado. The Veteran provided testimony at a Board hearing conducted by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in July 2018; a transcript is of record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability, to include as secondary to service-connected left knee disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that he developed left hip symptoms and disability as a result of his service-connected left knee degenerative arthritis/Osgood-Schlatter’s disease. The Veteran’s pre-existing left knee Osgood-Schlatter’s disease was aggravated by service, and he has a current 10 percent rating for his left knee condition. During his July 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran described his knee as resulting in a “weeble-wobble” gait. He argues that his altered gait and altered use of his left leg due to his left knee condition resulted in his left hip disability. He stated he first noticed left hip symptoms in 2006. He underwent left hip arthroplasty in September 2012. Additionally, during the Board hearing, the Veteran reported that he was told by a VA nurse practitioner that he should seek service connection for his left hip disability as it may have been caused by his left knee disability. He stated that this comment occurred in 2009 or 2010. Currently, the available treatment records in the claims file are from 2015 to 2017, only. The records do not include his 2012 arthroplasty, or any conservative treatment records from prior to his surgery. On remand, the additional VA treatment records must be obtained. The Veteran was afforded a VA joint examination in March 2014. The examiner provided a negative secondary service connection opinion, with the rationale “left hip condition is a new and separate condition that is not caused or aggravated by left knee diagnosis of osteoarthritis.” As this rationale is merely a conclusory statement and provides no explanation for the opinion, the Board must remand for an additional opinion. The Veteran stated during his Board hearing that he felt that his prior examination was short (“five minutes”) and that he was treated “condescendingly.” As an additional opinion is necessary, an additional examination should also be sought given the Veteran’s statements. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from 1996 to 2015 (including records from his September 2012 left hip arthroplasty, any treatment records from 2009-2010 from the VA in Sepulveda). 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his left hip disability. The examiner must opine: (a.) whether it is at least as likely as not (50/50 probability or greater) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease? (b.) whether it is at least as likely as not (50/50 probability or greater) proximately due to service-connected left knee disability? The Veteran contends that his left hip disability was caused by his altered gait due to his left knee disability. (c.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50/50 probability or greater) aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected left knee disability? If the examiner determines his left knee was aggravated, then the examiner should cite any medical evidence of the baseline severity of the left hip disability prior to aggravation. The examiner must provide a full explanation/rationale for each opinion expressed. (Continued on the next page)   3. After completing the development requested above, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. If any of the benefits sought are not granted in full, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. The case should then be returned to the Board, if otherwise in order. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M.H. Stubbs, Counsel