Citation Nr: 21006403 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 16-26 420 DATE: February 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the right hip post-operative total right hip total replacement is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from April 1972 to March 1980. He testified before the undersigned at a Travel Board hearing in March 2019 for the above claims. A transcript is of record. In a September 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (JMFR), Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) remanded the claim noting that the Board did not address a February 2017 diagnosis of mild bilateral degenerative joint disease as it pertains to the Veteran’s reported in-service bilateral knee injury. Furthermore, the Court determined that a remand is necessary for the May 2016 examiner to address a September 2010 medical record submission which includes documentation that the Veteran sustained a right hip injury in-service due to a fall. 1. Entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the right hip post-operative total right hip total replacement is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends that the onset of his right hip and bilateral knee disorders are the result of trauma he suffered while participating in multiple jumps as a paratrooper in-service. The Board concedes that the Veteran’s service personnel records do reveal that he was awarded the Parachutist badge among his many awards and accommodation. As noted above, a remand is necessary for the May 2016 examiner to address a September 2010 medical record submission which includes documentation reporting that the Veteran sustained a right hip injury in-service due to an in-service fall. While the Board remands the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder, that decision may impact his claim for a bilateral knee disorder. As such, these issues are potentially inextricably intertwined. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The Board has determined that the Veteran’s claims needs to be remanded for the May 2016 examiner to provide an opinion as to the issues above. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Return the Veteran’s claims file to the examiner who conducted the May 2016 VA examination for a right hip disorder so a supplemental opinion may be provided. If that examiner is no longer available, provide the Veteran’s claims file to a similarly qualified clinician. The entire claims file must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examiner must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. A new examination is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. After a thorough review of the medical history the examiners are each requested to prepare a detailed opinion which answers the following: (a) Taking into consideration the Veteran’s STR’s, lay statements, post service VA and private treatment records, is it as likely as not (that is a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any right hip disability manifested in service or is otherwise causally or etiologically related to his military service. A specific discussion should focus on the September 2010 medical record submission which includes documentation that the Veteran sustained a right hip injury in-service. If a pathology for the Veteran’s right hip disorder is not found to be related to or aggravated by his time in-service that should be specifically set out with the factors considered in making that determination. (b) Taking into consideration the Veteran’s STR’s, lay statements, post service VA and private treatment records, is it as likely as not (that is a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any bilateral knee disability manifested in service or is otherwise causally or etiologically related to his military service. A specific discussion should focus on the February 2017 medical record submission which includes documentation that the Veteran was diagnosed with mild bilateral degenerative joint disease. The examiner should also discuss whether the Veteran’s in-service right hip injury proximately caused the onset of his bilateral knee disorder. If a pathology for the Veteran’s bilateral knee disorder is not found to be related to or aggravated by his time in-service that should be specifically set out with the factors considered in making that determination. Please provide a complete rationale for all opinions entered and review the entire record including lay statements and hearing testimony. If an examiner cannot provide any of the requested opinions, he/she must affirm that all procurable and assembled data was fully considered, and a detailed rationale must be provided for why an opinion cannot be rendered. 2. The AOJ must ensure that the examiner’s report complies with this remand and answers the questions presented in the request. The AOJ must also ensure that the examiner documents consideration of the electronic claims file. If the report is insufficient, the AOJ should take corrective action. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Elliot Harris, 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.