Citation Nr: 21074496 Decision Date: 12/15/21 Archive Date: 12/15/21 DOCKET NO. 19-12 700 DATE: December 15, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for a right hip disorder is reopened. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a May 2014 rating decision, the RO denied a claim for service connection for a right hip disorder. The Veteran did not appeal that decision or submit new and material evidence within one year of that determination. 2. The evidence received since the May 2014 rating decision, by itself, or in conjunction with previously considered evidence, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the underlying claim for service connection. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The May 2014 rating decision denying service connection for a right hip disorder is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103 (2014). 2. The evidence received since the May 2014 rating decision is new and material as to the claim for service connection for a right hip disorder, and the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from May 1986 to April 1989 and from January 1991 to March 1991. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2018 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2021. Law and Analysis In order to reopen a claim which has been denied by a final decision, a claimant must present new and material evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2018); see also Jackson v. Principi, 265 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (regardless of action taken by RO, Board must determine whether new and material evidence has been received subsequent to an unappealed RO denial). In a May 2014 rating decision, the RO denied a claim for service connection for a right hip disorder. In particular, the RO noted that the Veteran's service treatment records do not document complaints, treatment, or a diagnosis of a right hip disorder. A VA examination had revealed a current diagnosis of right hip bursitis, but the RO found that it was a known clinical diagnosis that was not incurred in, caused by, or aggravated by his military service. The Veteran was notified of that decision and his appellate rights in June 2014; however, he did not submit notice of disagreement within one year. In general, the rating decisions that are not timely appealed are final. See 38 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2014). There was also no new and material evidence received within one year of the issuance of the decision. Thus, the May 2014 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156 (b), 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103 (2014). The evidence received since the May 2014 rating decision includes post-service treatment records and lay statements, including the Veteran's December 2021 hearing testimony. Notably, the treatment records note an additional diagnosis of a chronic avulsion fracture, and the lay evidence includes statements that the Veteran injured his right hip during parachute jumps in service and that the disorder may also be secondary to his service-connected right knee disability. The Board finds that the evidence is new and material because it relates to unestablished facts necessary to substantiate the claim and could reasonably substantiate the claim were it to be reopened by triggering VA's duty to assist. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117-18 (2010). Thus, the Board finds that this evidence is both new and material, and the claim for service connection is reopened. REASONS FOR REMAND During the December 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that he injured his right hip at the same time that he injured his right knee in service. His representative also asserted that his current right hip disorder may be secondary to his service-connected right knee disability. Although the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in August 2018 in connection with his current claim, the examiner did not address secondary service connection. Therefore, the Board finds that an additional VA medical opinion is needed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for his right hip disorder. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The AOJ should also secure any outstanding VA medical records. 2. After completing the foregoing development, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any right hip disorder that may be present. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including any available service treatment records, post-service medical records, and lay statements. The examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should state this with a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has a right hip disorder that manifested during service or that is otherwise causally or etiologically related to his military service, to include any symptomatology, injury, or parachute jumps therein. The examiner should also opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any right hip disorder is either caused by or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected right knee disability. (The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of a certain conclusion as it is to find against it.) A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of consideration assistance to the Board. Because it is important "that each disability viewed in relation to its history," 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, copies of all pertinent records in the Veteran's claim s file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. 3. The AOJ should conduct any other development as may be indicated. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.M. Walker 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.