Citation Nr: 21014427 Decision Date: 03/12/21 Archive Date: 03/12/21 DOCKET NO. 13-44 036A DATE: March 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip and/or lower extremity nerve disorder, to include secondary to residuals of a pelvic stress fracture is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty for training from January 2006 to March 2006. She is service connected for disorders related to that term of service. This matter originally came to the Board from a July 2009 rating decision. The matter was remanded in January 2018. The Board denied service connection in December 2019. The Veteran appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and a joint motion for remand (JMR) was approved in August 2020. In March 2017, the Veteran testified at a Video Conference Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of this hearing is of record. The Veteran was notified in September 2020, that the VLJ who conducted the March 2017 hearing was no longer available to participate in the adjudication of the Veteran’s claim. The Veteran was also informed of her right to a new hearing. This letter indicated that if there was no response to this letter within 30 days, the Board would presume that she did not desire another hearing. The Veteran has not responded. Therefore, it is presumed that he does not want another Board hearing. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip and/or lower extremity nerve disorder, to include secondary to residuals of a pelvic stress fracture is remanded. The August 2020 JMR directed the Board to ensure compliance with the January 2018 remand directives. The JMR determined the February 2019 VA examination was inadequate as the examiner failed to address the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hip conditions, including her diagnosed hip trochanteric bursitis, as directed by the January 2018 remand directives. The examiner made blanket statements citing a lack of literature linking pelvic fractures to bursitis, which is insufficient as it does not address the Veteran’s specific circumstances. The Veteran contends her hip condition is related to her service-connected pelvic fracture. She states that she has used a cane for ambulation for long periods of time. She contends this altered her gait and contributed to her hip condition. Additionally, her mother, who is a registered nurse, has expressed the opinion that the Veteran’s current disability of the hip and nerve disorder of the lower extremities is related to her service connected left pelvis stress fracture. This evidence has not been adequately addressed by a VA examiner. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any bilateral hip disability, to include hip trochanteric bursitis. After reviewing the claims file and examining the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral hip disability, to include hip trochanteric bursitis: (a.) had its onset in service or is otherwise etiologically related to active service. The Veteran’s lay statements regarding her hip pain since separation should be addressed. The Veteran’s mother’s contentions should be addressed as she is an RN with specialized medical knowledge. (b.) was proximately due to the Veteran’s service-connected pelvic fracture. The Veteran’s statements about long-term cane use and altered gait should be addressed. (c.) underwent any incremental increase in disability, regardless of its permanence, due to the service-connected pelvic fracture. The term “incremental increase in disability” means additional impairment of earning capacity. Objective measurement, or numerical quantification, is not required to ascertain an increase in disability. Moreover, any “incremental increase in disability” need not be permanent. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Rekowski 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.