Citation Nr: 21000977 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 10-27 936 DATE: January 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a pelvic injury is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had a period of active duty service from September 1964 to August 1966. He was subsequently a Member of the Reserves and the file contains periodic examinations. The Veteran testified at a May 2016, Board hearing before the undersigned; a transcript is of record. In February 2019, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denied the issue addressed in this appeal. The Veteran appealed. In August 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court) granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), vacating the Board’s February 2019 decision and remanded the issue for additional adjudication in accordance with the terms of the JMR. Specifically, the Court requested that the Board obtain a new VA medical opinion which addresses whether the Veteran’s in-service motor vehicle accident (MVA) which resulted in his traumatic pelvic injury ever fully resolved prior to discharge. The examiner must also address why they believe the Veteran’s pelvic pain is more likely the result of the Veteran’s radiculopathy from his back and provide an adequate statement of reasons and basis for any determinations made.   Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a pelvic injury is remanded. The Veteran contends that the residuals of his pelvic injury are related to his time in-service. More specifically, the Veteran asserts that he experienced a motor vehicle accident in-service which resulted in a traumatic separation of his pelvis. He reports that his present symptomology of hip pain is directly related to the residuals of his in-service pelvic injury, including long term hip pain. Service treatment records (STRs) reveal that the Veteran was diagnosed with a traumatic separation of his pelvis sustained in a vehicle accident. The in-service examiner noted that the Veteran’s pelvis was repaired in May 1965 and he was hospitalized until June 1965. At his separation examination, the examiner noted the separation of the Veteran’s hip at the pubic ligament. The examiner also noted a midline pubis to umbilicus surgical scar. The dispositive question is whether the residuals of the Veteran’s traumatic separation of his pelvis in-service is related to the onset of the Veteran’s hip pain. As indicated above, a new VA examiner opinion is necessary for the examiner to determine whether the Veteran’s in-service MVA which resulted in a traumatic pelvic injury fully resolved prior to discharge. Furthermore, the examiner must also address why he/she believes the Veteran’s hip pain is more likely the result of the Veteran’s radiculopathy from his back and not related to the residuals of his traumatic pelvic separation injury in-service. Lastly, the examiner must address the Veteran’s reporting of consistent hip pain for approximately twenty years, including his 2002 post-service x-ray findings indicating the fusion of his pubic symphysis. For each opinion offered, the examiner must provide an adequate statement of reasons and basis for any determinations made. Thus, in order to extend every consideration to the Veteran, a VA medical opinion is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the records to the prior examiner, or a similarly qualified examiner for an addendum opinion. The examiner must be given access to all records contained in the claims file, and a notation must be made that a review of all records has been accomplished. After a thorough review of the medical history, the examiner is requested to prepare a detailed opinion which answers the following matters: Taking into consideration that the Veteran received treatment for traumatic separation of his pelvis in-service, is it as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any identifiable hip disorder is related to the residuals of the Veteran’s in-service pelvic injury. The examiner should discuss whether the Veteran’s traumatic pelvic injury fully resolved in-service, to include his 2002 post-service x-ray findings indicating the fusion of his pubic symphysis. The examiner must also discuss why he/she believe the Veteran’s hip pain is more likely the result of the Veteran’s radiculopathy from his back and not related to the residuals of his traumatic pelvic separation injury in-service (if in fact that is the continued finding on this review). Lastly, the examiner must address the Veteran’s reporting of consistent hip pain for twenty years post-service and why this reporting is not related to the Veteran’s in-service pelvic injury. If a pathology for the Veteran’s hip disorder is not found to be related to the residuals of his pelvic injury in-service, that should be specifically set out with the factors considered in making that determination. The significance and any impairment related to the reported ligament injury should also be set out, to the extent any impairment is identified. Please provide a complete rationale for all opinions entered. If the examiner cannot provide any of the requested opinions, he/she must affirm that all procurable and assembled data was fully considered, and a detailed rationale must be provided for why an opinion cannot be rendered. The AOJ must ensure that the examiner’s reports comply with this remand and answers the questions presented in the request. The AOJ must also ensure that the examiner documents consideration of the electronic claims file, including any records contained in the Virtual claims file, including any records contained in Virtual VA and VBMS. If the report is insufficient, the AOJ should take corrective action. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Elliot Harris, 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.