Citation Nr: A21017689 Decision Date: 11/02/21 Archive Date: 11/02/21 DOCKET NO. 190221-5359 DATE: November 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A left hip disability was not manifest in service and is not attributable to service. 2. A right hip disability was not manifest in service and is not attributable to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A left hip disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. A right hip disability was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1964 to November 1967. A rating decision was issued under the legacy system in April 2013. In September 2018, the Veteran opted into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) election form and selecting the higher-level review (HLR) lane. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a RAMP HLR decision in January 2019, which is the decision on appeal. In the February 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. Therefore, the Board may consider the evidence of record at the time of the RAMP opt-in, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). A hearing was held in August 2020. Due to audio malfunctions, a transcript was not able to be produced. The Veteran was given the opportunity to schedule another hearing, and he declined in a July 2021 correspondence. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability The Veteran seeks service connection for his bilateral hip disabilities, which he asserts are due to his parachute jumps during service. To establish service connection a Veteran must generally show: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service." Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to service. The Veteran's full service treatment records are not available. However, his separation examination shows that the hips were normal upon examination and the Veteran denied any joint pain. No injury to either hip was reported. Medical treatment records show that the Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral hip osteonecrosis in 2011 and subsequently had surgery for each hip. The Veteran received a VA examination for his hips in March 2013. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hip osteonecrosis was less likely than not due to his active service because no hip injury was noted during service, and the medical literature does not support the assertion that parachute jumps can cause hip osteonecrosis unless there was direct injury or trauma to the hip joints. The examiner's opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran believes his bilateral hip disability is related to his parachute jumps or microtrauma associated with use during service. The Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of pathology. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Here, there is no proof of any injury or microtrauma during service. In addition, there are no Jandreau exceptions in this case. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the opinion of the March 2013 VA examiner. Here, there is no credible evidence of hip pathology during service or in proximity to separation. Rather, at separation the hips were normal. Furthermore, there is no competent evidence linking the very remote findings to service. Service connection for a bilateral hip disability is denied. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and there is no doubt to be resolved. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. The issue of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded to correct a duty to assist error that occurred prior to the January 2019 rating decision on appeal. At the Veteran's March 2013 VA examination, the examiner stated that an etiological opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, as there were no service treatment records to help determine when hearing loss began. However, the Veteran's separation audiological examination and audiological examinations from reserve service post-active duty are available. Therefore, remand is required for an opinion that adequately addresses the evidence of record. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his bilateral hearing loss disability. The examiner must review the claims file. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss disability at least as likely as not related to his active service? Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Creegan, Amanda 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.