Citation Nr: 21002522 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-36 871 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT A right hip disorder was not shown in service or many years thereafter; and, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a right hip disorder is etiologically related to active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a right hip disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the Army from July 1972 to April 1974. The appeal originates from a January 2016 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned in February 2019. The matter was remanded in July 2019 for a VA examination with opinion, and May 2020 for issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The requested examination with opinion was obtained in August 2019, and an SSOC was issued in May 2020. The matter was again remanded in September 2020 for an addendum opinion, which was obtained in October 2020. There has been substantial compliance with the Remand directives. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service.  38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).  Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).  Service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) a disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  Certain chronic diseases, such as arthritis, will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Veteran contends that he injured his right hip in service from falling off a truck. See February 2019 Hearing Transcript.  The August 2019 VA examination reflects a diagnosis of right hip osteoarthritis. Element (1) of Shedden is met. Service treatment records are silent for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a right hip disorder. The Veteran denied having a history of swollen or painful joints, arthritis, or any bone, joint, or other deformity in a report of medical history completed at separation in April 1974. However, the records do indicate that the Veteran had a fall in April 1974. Such is sufficient to establish an in-service event and meet Shedden element (2). Regarding Shedden element (3) or a nexus, the October 2020 examiner opined that a right hip disorder is less likely as not related to service. The examiner determined that the service treatment records are silent for a hip injury or condition. The examiner found no evidence that the Veteran suffered a right hip injury in service. The examiner also noted that arthritis was diagnosed decades after separation from service. The Board interprets this to mean that any in-service injury was nonspecific for the right hip given that the examiner reviewed the service treatment records. There is no competent opinion to the contrary. Consideration is given to the personal assertions of the Veteran that his current right hip disorder is related to his in-service hip injury. However, while lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), the specific issue in this case falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson ,492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The disability at issue is not a condition that is readily amenable to probative lay comment regarding etiology. The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms, but there is no indication that he is competent to etiologically link any such symptoms to a current diagnosis. He is not shown to possess the requisite medical training, expertise, or credentials needed to render a diagnosis (such as arthritis) or a competent opinion as to medical causation. Nothing in the record demonstrates that he received any special training or acquired any medical expertise in evaluating his disorder. See King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the lay evidence does not constitute competent medical evidence and lacks probative value. The lay opinion is also outweighed by the October 2020 VA opinion. Turning to presumptive service connection, the record does not reflect a diagnosis of arthritis within one year of separation. To the contrary, the record shows that arthritis was diagnosed decades after service. The Veteran does not contend otherwise. As to continuity of symptomatology, August 2015 and November 2015 statements from the Veteran’s mother and spouse appear to indicate a history of right hip problems since service. However, the Veteran reported being in “good health” and denied bone or joint problems other than the knees at separation. The Board affords his reporting at separation greater weight as it was closer in time to service and more likely an accurate reflection of his symptom history. In addition, the lay statements indicate that an Army doctor told the Veteran he would have hip problems due to service, but there is no such reasoned medical opinion of record for the Board to review. Consideration is given to the personal assertions of the Veteran, his mother, and spouse that his right hip disorder is related to service. However, while lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), the specific issues in this case fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The disability at issue is not a condition that is readily amenable to probative lay comment regarding etiology.  The Veteran, his mother, and spouse are competent to report observable symptoms, but there is no indication that they are competent to etiologically link any such symptoms to a current diagnosis. They are not shown to possess the requisite medical training, expertise, or credentials needed to render a diagnosis or a competent opinion as to medical causation. Nothing in the record demonstrates that they received any special training or acquired any medical expertise in evaluating his knee disorder. See King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the lay evidence does not constitute competent medical evidence and lacks probative value. The lay opinions are also outweighed by the October 2020 opinion. Thus, as the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a right hip disorder is related to service, the claim must be denied. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Alhinnawi 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.