Citation Nr: 21041536 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-63 605 DATE: July 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a left hip disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a left knee disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 2001 to August 2005. This matter was previously before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in April 2020, and was remanded for further development, which has been completed. Specifically, the Board reopened the claims of service connection for a left hip and left knee disability and remanded those claims for readjudication at the RO level. In an August 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), the RO denied the claims on appeal. On his substantive appeal the Veteran requested a Board hearing. However, his scheduled April 2020 hearing was canceled due to COVID-19. The Veteran was contacted and chose to waive his right to a hearing and proceed to a decision. It is valuable to note that the Veteran has already been found to be 100 percent disabled by VA. The Veteran has been in receipt of a schedular 100 percent combined disability rating since January 30, 2019. In this case, the Board is only dealing with the limited outstanding issues that it must address under the law. Lastly, the Board observes the Veteran is not represented in this appeal. Service Connection Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required for service connection if the disability is one that is listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In addition, service connection may also be granted on the basis of a post-service initial diagnosis of a disease, where the physician relates the current condition to the period of service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Other specifically enumerated disorders will be presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifested to a compensable degree within the first year following separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. In this regard, in order to establish service connection for the claimed disorders, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). The requirement of a current disability is "satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim." See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA. VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record. Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to do so. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000). In doing so, the Board is free to favor one medical opinion over another, provided it offers an adequate basis for doing so. Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429, 433 (1995). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability The Veteran contends that his left hip pain and left knee pain are due to active service. Alternatively, the Veteran contends that his left hip pain and left knee pain are the result of an injury from a truck accident during active service. The Veteran's VA treatment records note complaints of hip pain. See August 2014 VA Examination. As for the Veteran's left knee pain, VA treatment records show findings of patellofemoral tracking syndrome, mild patellofemoral and medial compartment chondrosis, mild insertional quadriceps tendinosis, and mild proximal patellar tendinosis. See April 2017, MRI Lower Extremity Joint. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that any current hip condition or left knee disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a), (d). (Continued on the next page) The Veteran's service treatment records are negative for any complaints of or treatment for hip pain, knee pain, or similar injury. The service treatment records do show a motor vehicle rollover accident in June 2003. However, it was noted that the Veteran only hit the back of his head. Furthermore, a VA examiner noted the records do not support any hip or knee injury in the truck accident. See May 2019 VA Examination. There is also no evidence of any hip or knee disability within one year of service. As the Board can find no evidence of any hip or knee injury in service or even speculative medical evidence of a nexus between any current hip pain, knee pain, and service, there is no basis to grant entitlement to service connection. The evidence in this case is not so evenly balanced so as to allow application of the benefit-of- the-doubt rule. Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53; 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Laura Cochran, 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.