Citation Nr: 21000551 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 265 DATE: January 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right hip is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the left hip is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right knee is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1963 to June 1966 with service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2018, the Board remanded the appeal to the RO for additional development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right hip is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the left hip is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the left knee is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the right knee is remanded. The Veteran contends that his degenerative joint disease is due to his in-service military duties/military occupational specialty, to include due to tower jumps or jumps from a helicopter. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2019. The examiner noted the Veteran had diagnoses of degenerative arthritis in both knees and hips and opined the Veteran's degenerative arthritis was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the Veteran's in-service military duties/military occupational specialty. The examiner reasoned that active duty records are silent for an active duty knee or hip injury with continued treatment and care. There is a temporal gap of treatment of 53 years lacking a bilateral knee or hip condition to include degenerative arthritis. Degenerative arthritis is related to the natural progression of aging. The examiner did not specifically address why the Veteran's degenerative arthritis was more likely due to aging and not incurred in or caused by the Veteran's in-service military duties/military occupational specialty, to include due to tower jumps or jumps from a helicopter. Therefore, the opinions are inadequate. New opinions based on a full review of the record and supported by stated rationale is needed to fairly resolve the Veteran's claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who treated him from discharge until the present for the claimed knee and hip disabilities, including the providers who treated him in 1968 and 1971 (Hospital in Clayton, Georgia), 1987 (Pinnacle Orthopedic in Marietta, Georgia), and 2005 (hospital for car accident) and his current provider. With any necessary authorization from the Veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the Veteran which have not previously been secured. Any records obtained should be associated with the file. Failures to respond or negative replies should be noted and associated with the file. 2. Obtain all VA treatment records from any VA facility in Marietta and Atlanta, Georgia and Asheville, North Carolina, dated from 1968 to the present. Any records obtained should be associated with the file. Failures to respond or negative replies should be noted and associated with the file. 3. After the above development is completed, obtain an addendum opinion from a physician (M.D.) to determine the nature and etiology of any bilateral hip condition and any bilateral knee condition. The physician is asked to review all pertinent records and evidence associated with the claims file and address the following: a. For each diagnosed hip disability (including degenerative joint disease of the left hip and degenerative joint disease of the right hip noted in December 2010 VA treatment records), provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the hip disability is related to any symptomatology noted in service and/or his in-service military duties/military occupational specialty, to include due to tower jumps or jumps from a helicopter. In so opining, the physician should consider the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms of hip pain over the years and explain whether such disability is consistent with the type of hip injury that the Veteran has described as having occurred in service (i.e., whether the claimed in-service hip trauma left chronic residuals). b. For each diagnosed knee disability (including degenerative joint disease of the left knee and degenerative joint disease of the right knee noted in December 2010 VA treatment records), provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the knee disability is related to any symptomatology noted in service and/or his in-service military duties/military occupational specialty, to include due to tower jumps or jumps from a helicopter. In so opining, the physician should consider the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms of knee pain over the years and explain whether such disability is consistent with the type of knee injury that the Veteran has described as having occurred in service (i.e., whether the claimed in-service knee trauma left chronic residuals). The physician is requested to provide a clear rationale and explain in detail the underlying reasoning for any opinions expressed. A discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If the physician cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Edwin B. Esmenda, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.