Citation Nr: 21029189 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 18-28 527A DATE: May 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating for a right hip arthroplasty in excess of 30 percent for the period from April 1, 2010, to September 20, 2016, and in excess of 70 percent since that date is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating for a left hip arthroplasty in excess of 30 percent for the period from April 1, 2010, to September 20, 2016, and in excess of 70 percent since that date is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to June 1970. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for heroism for his actions in the Republic of Vietnam. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran asserted in February 2015 that his bilateral total hip arthroplasty resulted in high cobalt levels and noted that he had been treated for colorectal cancer. In his September 2016 claim, he clarified that he had metallosis due to high levels of cobalt and chromium in his blood. The Veteran testified at his December 2020 hearing that he believes his colorectal cancer is directly related to the blood disorder he developed from his faulty hip replacements. To date, the RO has taken no action to develop the Veteran's claim. Hence, the Board finds it appropriate to refer the issues of entitlement to service connection for a blood disorder and colorectal cancer, to include as secondary to service-connected bilateral total hip arthroplasty, to the RO for proper development of the claim. 1. Entitlement to individual disability ratings in excess of 30 percent from April 1, 2010, for status post bilateral total hip arthroplasty. The Veteran originally had both hips replaced in February 2009. He was granted entitlement to service connection for bilateral total hip arthroplasty in a September 2010 rating decision. In the decision, he was granted individual 30 percent ratings for each hip. The Veteran filed a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD) and another rating decision was issued in August 2012 granting a temporary 100 percent rating for post-surgery convalescence from May 15, 2009, until March 31, 2010, and individual 30 percent ratings for each hip from April 1, 2010. The Veteran again filed a timely NOD, arguing that he is entitled to a 100 percent rating for his bilateral hip disability from April 1, 2010. The claim was further developed in response to other claims, but the RO did not respond with a Statement of the Case (SOC) until May 2018. Although the RO issued a partial grant of benefitsindividual 70 percent ratings effective September 20, 2016it does not appear from the face of the SOC that the RO considered evidence prior to September 2016 when rendering its decision. Therefore, remand is necessary for the RO to readjudicate the claim taking into consideration the entire record on appeal. In addition, the Veteran recently testified at his December 2020 hearing that he once again had a second bilateral total hip arthroplasty in early 2017. Medical records indicate that the Veteran did indeed have both hips replaced in February and March of 2017. As such, the RO should consider whether another temporary 100 percent rating for convalescence may be warranted at some time during the period on appeal. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records related to the Veteran's bilateral hip replacement claim, to include any outstanding treatment records relevant to any post-operative treatment following his 2017 surgeries. If the Veteran has received any relevant private treatment, he should be afforded the opportunity to submit these records. 2. After obtaining any identified additional post-surgical treatment records, the RO should undertake any additional development necessary, to include any additional opinions. 3. After the above development has been completed, the RO should readjudicate the appeal from the claim received May 15, 2009. If the benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further appellate review. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Daniel Ballinger, Associate Counsel