Citation Nr: 21076964 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 15-27 271A DATE: December 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip condition, to include as due to a left knee injury postoperative is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1986 to April 1988. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Reno, Nevada (RO). The Veteran was afforded a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2019. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran's electronic claims file. The claim was denied in a September 2019 Board decision. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In May 2021, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision vacating the September 2019 Board decision and remanding for compliance with the terms of the Memorandum Decision. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip condition, to include as due to a left knee injury postoperative The May 2021 Memorandum Decision directed attention to the January 2012 and February 2015 VA examinations and the May 2012 addendum opinion. The Court concluded that no VA examination of record adequately addressed the Veteran's theory of service connection. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that his knee problem caused an altered gait that has resulted in hip problems. The Board acknowledges that there are two private medical opinions of record from the Veteran's private doctor, Dr. Y.K. The Veteran's attorney contends that service connection should be granted on the basis of these opinions. In a May 2019 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), Dr. Y.K. reviewed the Veteran's claims file and opined that it was "definitely possible" that the Veteran's hip condition is a result of in-service parachuting or compensating for knee pain. In a May 2019 DBQ, Dr. Y.K. opined that it was "definitely possible" that the Veteran's hip condition is a result of in-service parachuting or compensating for knee pain. However, these opinions do not contain a supporting rationale for the conclusions drawn, and are speculative, and therefore cannot be the basis for the establishment of service connection for the claimed disability. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007); see also Polovick v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 48, 54 (2009); Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999); Obert v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 30, 33 (1993). As such, a remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion which adequately addresses the Veteran's theory of service connection. The Board notes that the most recent VA treatment records associated with the Veteran's file are from December 2016. Any additional VA treatment records should be obtained on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records from December 2016 to the Present. 2. Once the above development has been completed, obtain an addendum opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's current bilateral hip condition. The entire file must be made available to the examiner designated to provide the opinion, and the opinion should include discussion of the Veteran's documented history and assertions. The examiner is asked to review all pertinent records and evidence associated with the claims file and address the following: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hip condition was: i. caused by, or ii. aggravated by his service-connected left knee disability. The examiner must specifically address the Veteran's assertion that his service-connected left knee disability has caused an altered gait and radiated to his hips, resulting in his bilateral hip condition. The examiner is requested to provide a clear rationale and explain in detail the underlying reasoning for any opinions expressed. A discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an examiner cannot provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Bynum, 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.