Citation Nr: 21062733 Decision Date: 10/12/21 Archive Date: 10/12/21 DOCKET NO. 18-19 249 DATE: October 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from August 1964 to August 1968. In February 2018, the Veteran submitted a RAMP Opt-in Election Form requesting a Higher-Level Review of his service connection for bilateral hip and back disorders. At the time of his submission, his claim was eligible for review under the RAMP program. Regretfully, his RAMP Opt-in form was not discovered until recently. Upon discovery of the missed RAMP Opt-In form, the Board sent the Veteran a letter in June 2021 informing him that his RAMP Opt-in form had not been processed. The Board requested he clarify whether he would like to continue his appeal under the legacy review system or under the AMA review system. If he wished to participate in the RAMP program, the Board instructed that he should complete the RAMP Participation Form included in the letter within 60 days from the date of that letter. The letter notified the Veteran that, if he did not want to participate in the RAMP program, then no action was required, and his appeal would remain in the legacy appeals system. To date, the Board has not received the RAMP Participation Form nor any other correspondence indicating his intention to participate in the RAMP program. In this regard, the Board finds that the Veteran's appeal of his claims service connection for bilateral hip and back disorders will remain in the legacy appeal system. In his March 2018 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a Board hearing. In an October 2020 statement, the Veteran, withdrew his hearing request. Accordingly, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (d), (e). In remanding these matters, the Board makes no finding, implicit or otherwise, as to the credibility of the Veteran's assertions. Neither the Veteran's credibility nor any lack thereof should be presumed in this remand. Indeed, the Board expressly defers a credibility determination in this appeal until the development has been completed to the extent feasible. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disorder is remanded 3. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is remanded. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for bilateral hip and low back disorders. He contends that his current bilateral hip and low back disorders are a result of injury incurred from "300 plus" parachute jumps during service. See Congressional (October 2019). Although the Veteran does not report the onset of hip or back problems until after service, he believes that the long-term health impact of high number of parachute jumps during service resulted in his current claimed disorders. See NOD (November 2017) The Veteran's service personnel records confirm that he completed Airborne Course in 1966 and Parachute Jumpmaster Training Course in 1968, and he was assigned duties as parachutist from July 1967 to December 1967. See Certificate of Discharge from Active Duty (DD-214) (October 2017) and Service Military Records (October 2017). The Veteran's service treatment records (STR) do not reflect any complaints or treatment for back, bilateral lower extremity, or parachute jump-related injury. His August 1968 examination prior to separation shows that his lumbar spine and lower extremities were evaluated as normal. See STR-Medical (October 2017). VA treatment records reflect that the Veteran has degenerative arthritis in lumbar spine and in both of his hips, status post total hip replacements. The available records show that the Veteran underwent an initial left total hip replacement surgery in 1992, and he require revision surgery on his left hip in December 1996. He underwent a right total hip replacement surgery in December 2004. See VAMC Other Output / Reports (November 2017). To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist, a remand is necessary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c). Additional development is required to obtain outstanding federal and VA treatment records as well attempt to obtain identified private treatment records, and to provide the Veteran with a new VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed disorders. First, the record reflects that there are outstanding and relevant Social Security Administration (SSA) records. See SHARE Print Screens (January 2008). Although the RO made initial inquires as to SSA records, there is no clear determination as to the availability of any SSA records has been made. The Court of Appeals of Veteran Claims (Court) has indicated that medical records upon which an award of Social Security disability benefits has been predicated are relevant to VA claims for service connection. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). A remand is required to allow VA to request these records. Next, the record contains identified outstanding VA and private treatment records. VA has a duty to assist in obtaining sufficiently identified medical records. See Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The record reflects that there are outstanding treatment records from VA medical facilities in Baltimore and Fort Howard prior to December 1996 and from January 1997, and from VA medical center (VAMC) in Durham since March 2017. A remand is needed to obtain these outstanding VA treatment records and associated them with the claims folder. In addition, VA treatment record reflect that the Veteran has received private medical treatment from the following facilities: Baltimore Community Hospital in 1992 for his initial left total hip replacement surgery, and Chowan Hospital and Pitt County Hospital in 2004 for his right total hip replacement surgery. These private treatment records are relevant to the Veteran's hip claims. On remand, the Veteran should be afforded an opportunity to authorize release of all relevant private treatment records to VA. Finally, no VA medical opinion has been obtained that addresses the Veteran's claimed disorder. Here, there is medical evidence of current hip and back disability as well as military records that corroborate the Veteran's participate in parachute jumps during service. VA's duty to provide the Veteran with a VA examination and medical opinion in conjunction with his claims has been triggered. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006) (a VA examination and/or opinion is warranted when there is an indication in the record that a current disability is related to military service; the threshold for an indication is low). On remand, the Veteran should be afforded with a VA examination and medical opinion to determine whether the Veteran's current bilateral hip and low back disorders are a result of injury sustained from his participation in parachute jumps during military service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's federal records from SSA. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 2. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records prior to December 1996 and from January 1997 from VA medical facilities in Baltimore and Fort Howard, and from March 2017 to the present VAMC Durham. 3. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for all non-VA medical providers seen for symptoms or treatment of the lumbar spine and bilateral hip disorders, including from Baltimore Community Hospital in 1992, and Chowan Hospital and Pitt County Hospital in 2004. Make two requests for the authorized records from all identified sources unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's lumbar spine and bilateral hip disorders. The examiner must provide opinions on the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including parachute jumps and military occupational specialty as a parachutist for several months. (b.) Concerning arthritis, whether it at least as likely as not (1) began during active service, (2) manifested within one year after discharge from active service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service. An adequate medical opinion should (1) reflect consideration of the Veteran's assertions of long-term health affect associated with multiple parachute jumps, (2) reflect consideration of any relevant medical literature that should be directly referenced and included with the opinion; and (3) not predicate a negative medical opinion solely on the absence or lack of documented in-service complaints, treatment, or findings. The examiner is reminded that an in-service injury and/or diagnosis is not required as evidence, and the Veteran's lay assertions, if credible, may substitute the absence of annotated injuries and/or diagnoses. 5. Ensure that the VA medical opinions obtained includes a complete rationale for the conclusions reached. The medical opinions must support the conclusions reached with an analysis that is adequate for the Board to consider and weigh against other evidence of record; medical opinions must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. If an opinion cannot be expressed without resort to speculation, ensure that the clinician so indicates and discusses why an opinion is not possible, to include whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. M., 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.