Citation Nr: 21070845 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 14-38 735 DATE: November 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a hip condition is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1979 to October 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran's claim was previously before the Board in May 2018, at which time it was remanded for additional development. Upon completion of the directed development, the claim was returned to the Board and subsequently denied in a June 2020 decision. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The Court then issued an order approving a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion) to address deficiency in the May 2018 Board decision in March 2019. The case has, thus, been returned to the Board. Entitlement to service connection for a hip condition and bilateral knee disability is remanded. The Board's June 2020 denial of the Veteran's service connection claims for a hip and knee disability were, in large part, based on the October 2019 VA medical opinions. Although the VA examiner acknowledged the Veteran's lay statements of an injury during active service, the examiner noted that there were no contemporaneous records of related complaints or conditions while in service. Based on the lack of records, the examiner concluded that there is no objective information of a nexus to service. The July 2021 JMR determined that the Board erred insofar as it found the October 2019 VA opinions adequate. In this regard, the parties agreed that the October 2019 VA opinions were incomplete in light of Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39 (2007), which holds that a VA examiner's opinion is inadequate where the examiner "impermissibly ignored the appellant's lay assertions," and instead based the opinion solely on "the lack of notation or treatment of [] injury during service". Consistent with the terms of the July 2021 JMR, the parties agreed that remand is warranted to afford the Veteran a new medical examination that adequately addresses the Veteran's lay statements. The Board therefore remands this case for the indicated development. Further, the Veteran indicated there are outstanding emergency treatment records from his infantry or air assault training school. He also alleges outstanding personnel records pertaining to a helicopter accident. As such, these records should be obtained on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify any additional relevant records he wishes considered regarding this appeal, to include the times and places of emergency room treatment he reports to have received during service. The AOJ should make appropriate efforts to obtain complete copies, to the extent such exist, of the Veteran's clinical records concerning an emergency room visit at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for treatment the Veteran reports; and copies of the Veteran's service personnel records. 2. After completing the aforementioned development, obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the nature and etiology of any diagnosed hip and bilateral knee disabilities. If the clinician finds that an examination is necessary, an examination should be scheduled. The examiner should review the claims file and provide an opinion as to the following: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's hip and bilateral knee disabilities had their onset in service, within one year of discharge from service, or otherwise causally or etiologically related to service? The examiner should be advised that Veteran was awarded the "Air Assault Badge" and must not base any negative opinion solely on the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence confirming relevant complaints in service. The examiner also should consider the Veteran's reports of symptom onset, and symptom history, and indicate whether the Veteran's reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disabilities are known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible. 3. A complete rationale for all stated opinions must be provided. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Jaigirdar, 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.