Citation Nr: 21028729 Decision Date: 05/11/21 Archive Date: 05/11/21 DOCKET NO. 14-31 955A DATE: May 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability, to include degenerative joint disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability, to include degenerative joint disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability, to include degenerative joint disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, to include osteoarthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability, to include osteoarthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right hand disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left hand disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability, to include degenerative joint disease is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability, to include degenerative joint disease is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability, to include degenerative joint disease is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, to include osteoarthritis is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability, to include osteoarthritis is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for back, bilateral hip, and bilateral knee disabilities which he asserts are etiologically related to the performance of his duties during active duty service. The Veteran underwent a VA back examination in November 2013. However, the examiner's only rationale was a lack of treatment for the back disability during service. Further, the November 2013 VA examiner did not have access to the medical and lay evidence discussed below. The Veteran submitted a letter from his private treating physician that opined his current back, bilateral hip, and bilateral knee disabilities were at least likely as not incurred as a result of the Veteran's active military service. The rationale provided was based on the Veteran's lay reports of sleeping on the tank and injuries while working on the tank; however, this opinion also cited to duties while the Veteran served in the 62 Juliet Field Unit. As noted above, the Veteran has a period of honorable service and a period of other than honorable service. Service personnel records indicate the Veteran was a tank driver and attached to an armor division during his period of honorable service and was a general construction machine operator with an engineer battalion (noted to be 62J10) for his period of other than honorable service. As such, further opinion is required to determine the etiology of the disabilities. Service Connection for a Bilateral Hand Disability is Remanded. The Veteran contends service connection is warranted for a bilateral hand disability. After review of the evidence, a remand is necessary to allow the Board to make a fully informed decision. At his March 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran reported in-service hand pain. While, VA treatment records show complaints of hand pain, it is unclear whether the Veteran has a current bilateral hand disability. To date, the Veteran has not been provided an examination to determine the nature and etiology of any bilateral hand disability, as such, a remand is necessary. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). 2. Service Connection for Bilateral Hearing Loss is Remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In September 2013, the Veteran underwent a VA examination to determine the etiology of any current hearing loss disability. While. the examination did not show hearing loss for VA purposes the Veteran's Maryland CNC test results showed 94% in the left ear. Further, it is unclear from the record whether the Veteran's hearing loss has worsened. While the passage of time alone does not warrant a new examination, given the Veteran's potential complaints of worsening, the Board finds that a current examination is necessary. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174 (2007); see also Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate all VA treatment records since September 2016 with the electronic claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA joints examination to determine the etiology of any back, bilateral knee and bilateral hip disability. The examiner must have the appropriate expertise and be provided access to the electronic claims file. The examiner must indicate review of the claims file in the examination report. The examiner is asked to provide the following opinions: a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current back disability was incurred in or caused by the Veteran's active military service from June 1978 to June 1981? b) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current bilateral knee disability was incurred in or caused by the Veteran's active military service from June 1978 to June 1981? c) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any bilateral hip disability was incurred in or caused by the Veteran's active military service from June 1978 to June 1981? The VA examiner must comment on the Veteran's lay reports of sleeping on a tank and injuries while working on the tank and specifically discuss the impact of the Veteran's duties on the development and progression on the claimed disabilities. A rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions rendered. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of any bilateral hand disability. The examiner must have the appropriate expertise and be provided access to the electronic claims file. The examiner must indicate review of the claims file in the examination report. The examiner is asked to provide the following opinions: a) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any current bilateral hand disability was incurred in or caused by the Veteran's active military service from June 1978 to June 1981? The VA examiner must comment on the Veteran's lay reports of in-service hand pain. A rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions rendered. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiology examination. After reviewing the claims file and performing the appropriate diagnostic testing, the VA examiner should offer the following opinions: (Continued on the next page) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the any current bilateral hearing loss had its onset in service, is otherwise related to his active service, or had its onset within one year of separation from service from June 1978 to June 1981? The examiner should presume the Veteran was exposed to noise in-service. A rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions rendered. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Teague, 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.