Citation Nr: 21041473 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 17-55 596 DATE: July 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left hip and thigh disability, to include left hip replacement, myositis ossificans, and periosteal elevation of the femur, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's left hip and thigh disability, to include left hip replacement, myositis ossificans, and periosteal elevation of the femur, was found to be related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left hip and thigh disability, to include left hip replacement, myositis ossificans, and periosteal elevation of the femur, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1976 to April 1980. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). The Veteran originally claimed entitlement to service connection for left hip strain status-post total hip arthroplasty (also claimed as thigh condition, fracture and callous). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that "a claimant's identification of the benefit sought does not require any technical precision." Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 85 (2009); see also Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 232, 256-57 (2007). In light of the Veteran's diagnoses of record, the Board has recharacterized the issue as reflected on the title page. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip and thigh disability, to include left hip replacement, myositis ossificans, and periosteal elevation of the femur In order to establish service connection, there must be evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Veteran currently has a diagnosis of degenerative joint disease, with a full hip replacement in 2013, of the left hip; and myositis ossificans in the left thigh. As such the first element of service connection, a current disability, has been satisfied. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) show the Veteran was injured in December 1976, during service, while playing basketball. Upon the injury, the Veteran fell to the ground and could not get up without assistance. In February 1977 he was seen for continued pain following that injury "between the knee and hip" and reported back for the same pain periodically over the next week. The doctor felt it was "probable myositis ossificans." In September 1977 he was seen in the orthopedic clinic for "contusion left lat thigh Dec 76 with subsequent symptoms seen by Dr. [G] 17 Feb 77." X-ray showed callous with attachment of latoralis muscle and the diagnosis of myositis ossificans was continued. In February 1978 he was seen for follow up of the left thigh and pain was reported as now occasional. As such, the second element of service connection, an in-service injury or event, has been satisfied. Finally, the Board must address whether a nexus exists between the Veteran's current disability and his in-service injury. The claims file includes a March 2021 opinion submitted by the Veteran, written by a private Neuro-Radiologist. The private examiner thoroughly reviewed the Veteran's file. He opined it is likely "to at least the 90% level of probability" that the Veteran's current left hip degenerative joint disease and subsequent left hip replacement were caused by the left leg injury in active service. He further explained the left leg injury had muscle damage and ossification, which in turn caused a limp, which in turn caused his left hip to fail with "advanced for age" degenerative joint disease and eventual replacement. The opinion is supported by a detailed rationale. The private physician fully considered the Veteran's history, current medical diagnosis, and is knowledgeable of his condition. The Board finds this opinion probative, as it provided a clear conclusion with supporting data, and reasoned medical explanations connecting the two. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124-25 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in June 2015 and July 2017. The examiners both provided negative nexus opinions, stating it is less likely than not the Veteran's current disability was caused by service. They reasoned that the Veteran's left hip injury was due to normal wear and tear, and the Veteran's obesity. They also point to a lack of medical records showing hip problems relating to the injury. The VA examination reports rely on a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence to find no continuity or chronicity of treatment from service. However, they do not provide an explanation for rejection of lay reports of pain since service. As a result, the Board attributes more weight to the private opinion and resolves doubt in the Veteran's favor to find that service connection is warranted for the left hip and thigh disability, to include left hip replacement, myositis ossificans, and periosteal elevation of the femur. Having successfully proven all three elements of a direct service connection claim the Board grants the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for the left hip and thigh disability, to include left hip replacement, myositis ossificans, and periosteal elevation of the femur. LAURA E. COLLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Brewer, 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.