Citation Nr: 21005377 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 17-08 267 DATE: February 1, 2021 ORDER Service connection for arthritis of the right hip is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s right hip arthritis was not shown as chronic in service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for arthritis of the right hip have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1980 to August 1983. In November 2019, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the Veteran’s claims file. The case was remanded in November 2019 for further development of the evidence. Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of the right hip The Veteran contends that service connection should be established for right hip arthritis. During testimony before the undersigned, the Veteran stated he was involved in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) during service at which time he sustained an injury of his hip that developed into arthritis. Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Review of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) show that he was involved in an MVA in September 1981 at which time he was noted to sustain injuries including a closed head injury with facial lacerations, a fracture of the mandible, and a puncture wound of the buttocks. On follow-up evaluation, complaints of pain in the neck were reported. Additional records show that during service the Veteran had complaints of pain in the left foot, left knee and achilles tendon. The STRs do not include complaints of pain, injury or disability of the right hip, including at the time of the September 1981 MVA. While the Veteran’s examination for separation from service is not of record, a December 1985 examination for enlistment into a reserve unit shows no complaint or manifestation of a right hip disorder. Clinical evaluation of the lower extremities at that time was also normal. Post-service VA treatment records show that the Veteran had complaints of right hip pain beginning in December 2013. During an evaluation for a disability unrelated to this appeal in October 2015, the Veteran reported that his lifestyle had become more sedentary after he had had a hip trauma. In February 2016, after reporting that he had initially had right hip pain in an MVA in 1981, he reported that he had experienced a “pop” in the right hip while moving a treadmill in August 2015. He stated that at that time his right leg had become swollen and that he had had some numbness. An X-ray of the right hip at that time showed mild degenerative osteoarthritis. Pursuant to remand by the Board, the Veteran was scheduled for an examination by VA for the purpose of making a determination regarding the etiology of his right hip arthritis. The Veteran failed to report for the examination. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of right hip arthritis as evidenced by the February 2016 X-ray study. Arthritis is an enumerated condition under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); Walker, 708 F.3d 1331. Review of the record, however, fails to demonstrate that the disability was shown as chronic in service. Neither is it demonstrated that it became manifest to a compensable degree within the one-year presumptive period applicable to that disability. Finally, it was not noted in service with attributable continuity of symptomatology. While the Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of right hip pain since service and consistently since that time, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of arthritis of the hip, as the Veteran has not demonstrated the necessary medical expertise. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body and the interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As noted above, the Veteran was scheduled to have an examination to determine the etiology of his right hip arthritis and whether there was any likely relationship with his military service, but he failed to report for that examination. When a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record. When the examination was scheduled in conjunction with any other original claim, a reopened claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed, or a claim for increase, the claim shall be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). Based upon the current evidence of record, the Board finds no basis to establish service connection for right hip arthritis. To summarize, the Veteran was involved in an MVA during service, but did not have complaints related to the right hip at that time or at any other time while he was on active duty. Post-service treatment records no reference to right hip pain until 2013, many years after separation from service. Arthritis was not shown until several years later. For these reasons, the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for arthritis of the right hip, the residual of an injury, and the claim must be denied. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Joseph P. Gervasio 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.