Citation Nr: 21006156 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 15-30 366 DATE: February 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for pelvic stress disorder, to include hip pain, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record does not show that the Veteran currently suffers from a pelvic disorder or hip condition that is related to her active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection pelvic stress disorder, to include hip pain, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1990 to May 1991, and active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from February 1982 to November 1982, with additional National Guard service with periods of ACDUTRA and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). The claim was brought before the Board in September 2017 and August 2020 and was remanded for further development. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In order to establish service connection, the record must show competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d, 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When considering such a claim for service connection, the Board must consider on a case-by-case basis, the competence and sufficiency of lay evidence offered to support a finding of service connection. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 Fed. Cir. 2007)). The mere conclusory or generalized lay statements that a service event or illness caused a current disability are insufficient. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). Entitlement to Service Connection: Pelvic Stress Disorder The Veteran contends that she currently suffers from pelvic stress disorder, manifested by hip pain, that is related to her active duty service, to include periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA). As an initial matter, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has been diagnosed with right hip strain. Further, the Veteran’s military records show she was diagnosed with right hip bursitis in service. Thus, the issue turns upon whether there is evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service event or injury and the present disability. See Sheldon v. Principi 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board finds there is not. In October 2019, the Veteran was provided a VA examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s claimed condition of pelvic disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury. The examiner rationalized that there was no current diagnosis of pelvic disorder in the records or during the examination. In November 2020, a VA opinion on the Veteran’s noted right hip strain and claimed pelvic disorder was obtained. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s claimed condition was less likely than not related to her active duty service. The examiner rationalized that there was no chronic diagnosis for pelvic stress disorder while on active duty. The examiner explained that the symptoms are subjective. The examiner provided that the hip strain noted on the examination in October 2019 was based on symptoms reported and objective findings; however, there was no confirmation of pelvic disorder in the records. The examiner additionally explained that the Veteran’s service records show she was seen for right hip bursitis. However, there are no further evaluations noting a right hip condition during duty and thus, there is a lack of evidence confirming the chronicity of a right hip condition. The examiner further found that other than the October 2019 diagnosis of right hip strain, there is no diagnosis or treatment for a right hip condition in her records. The examiner noted the Veteran’s statements were considered. The examiner lastly explained that bursa is a small fluid filled sac that cushions the bones, tendons, and muscles near the joints. Bursitis occurs when bursa becomes inflamed and irritated, usually from repetitive motions, and often goes away within a few weeks of resting the joint. The Board notes that VA treatment records show complaints for right hip or bilateral hip pain. However, it has often been noted as being related to her lumbar spine or bilateral knee condition in the form of radiculopathy. In fact, in November 2020 correspondence from the Veteran, she specifically stated the pain goes from her hip, to the lower back, and down to her thighs and feet. It has also been consistently noted in her records that the pain radiates from her back to hips and lower legs. The Board further notes that the Veteran has already been service-connected for her bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve and of the femoral nerve. Thus, her hip pain has already been considered and compensated for. The Board lastly notes that the Veteran’s records do not show any treatment or diagnosis for a pelvic disorder, as well as pelvic examinations have consistently been noted as normal. Therefore, the Board finds the October 2019 and November 2020 private opinions to be of significant probative value in determining the Veteran’s condition is not related to her active duty service.  The Board notes that the probative value of medical opinion evidence is based on the medical experts’ personal examination of the patient, their knowledge, and skill in analyzing the data, and their medical conclusion.  As is true with any piece of evidence, the credibility and weight to be attached to these opinions are within the province of the adjudicator.  Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993).  Here, the examiners showed knowledge of the Veteran’s background and based the opinions on the Veteran’s lay contentions, the physician’s medical knowledge, and examination of the Veteran. Additionally, the complete and thorough rationales were provided for the opinions rendered and are consistent with the medical evidence of record.  See Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993).   The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that she suffers from a pelvic disorder and/or hip condition that is related to her active duty service.  The Board recognizes that lay persons are competent to provide medical opinions on some medical issues. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011).  However, although the Veteran is competent to report her symptoms, any opinion regarding whether any disability is present and/or related to her military service, requires medical expertise that the Veteran has not demonstrated since pelvic disorders and hip pain can have many causes.  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 (2007).  Further, the Board again notes that the Veteran’s hip pain has consistently been noted as being related to her lumbar spine and/or bilateral knee conditions, to include by the Veteran in lay statements, and she has already been service-connected for her bilateral hip pain, in the form of her radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve and femoral nerve. Regarding the Veteran’s claim for pelvic stress disorder specifically, the Board has also acknowledged that the Court has previously held that the requirement that a claimant have a current disability before service connection may be awarded for that disability is also satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim, even if no disability is present at the time of the claim’s adjudication.  McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007).  In this case, however, the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with or treated for a pelvic stress disorder at any time during the pendency of the appeal. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the preponderance of evidence is against the claim and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application.  See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed Cir. 2001).  JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Negron, 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.