Citation Nr: 21027047 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 18-29 372 DATE: May 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left hip disorder, status post-total hip replacement (THA), is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left knee disorder, status post-total knee replacement (TKA), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND On initial review of this case the Board remanded it to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. See 07/13/2020 BVA Decision. The AOJ took steps to comply with the remand directives, but the Board finds that the documentation related to another facet of the remand is ambiguous as to whether there was substantial compliance. 1. Entitlement to service connection for left hip disorder, status post- THA, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left knee disorder, status post- TKA, is remanded. As the Board noted in the July 2020 remand, this is a fire-related case, which means that the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) informed the AOJ that if the Veteran had service treatment records (STRs) on file at the NPRC, they in all probability were destroyed in the 1973 fire. See 02/03/2011 Military Personnel Records; 01/09/2012 VA Memo. The Board directed the AOJ to ask the Veteran if he could recall the names of the Air Force Bases other than Tyndall Air Force Base at which he asserts he was treated in the emergency room while present at those bases as part of his home base's softball team. The AOJ sought to obtain the information from the Veteran via a telephone call. See 07/23/2020 VA 21-0820. The form reflects that the VA caller asked the Veteran the question as it was stated in the remand directive. However, the form reflects further that the Veteran did not answer the question asked by the caller, and the VA caller/scribe did not correct the Veteran. Per the form, the Veteran named bases where he was assigned, not the bases where he recalled being treated for his left hip or left knee while playing for his base softball team. (Emphasis added). Further, there is no indication in the file that the AOJ sought to obtain any records related to the bases the Veteran did name. The Board deems it necessary to clarify the matter, as this is a fire-related case, and VA has a heightened duty to consider the benefit of the doubt doctrine in such cases. O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991). Since the Board is remanding the case again, the Veteran's response to the Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) should be referred to the physician who provided the negative nexus opinions. The physician cited the Veteran's involvement in professional baseball as part of the wear and tear on his hip and joint apart from his active service. See 09/29/2020 C&P Exam, 1st and 2nd Entries. In his response to the SSOC, the Veteran asserted that the sole extent of his professional baseball involvement was a pre-service 10-day tryout with a Major League Baseball team, after which he was released. Afterward, he enlisted in the USAF. See 11/25/2020 Correspondence. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran again and specifically ask him if he was actually treated for his left hip or left knee, or both, at either of the bases he named in the July 2020 telephone conversation, or another base not named? If so, the AOJ should take appropriate action to inquire as to whether there are any clinical records extant related to the Veteran that may be associated with any military installation where the Veteran reported he was treated. The AOJ must take documented action to obtain relevant records from any installation named or document the reason why no action was taken. 2. Send the claims file to the physician who conducted the September 2020 examinations and provided the negative nexus opinions, or another equally qualified clinician if he is no longer available. Direct the physician's attention to the Veteran's November 2020 response to the SSOC. Ask the physician to provide an addendum wherein he states whether the Veteran's response changes his prior opinion in anyway. The physician must explain why the Veteran's response does or does not alter his prior opinions. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board W. T. Snyder 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.