Citation Nr: 22039131 Decision Date: 07/08/22 Archive Date: 07/08/22 DOCKET NO. 17-41 292 DATE: July 8, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 2004 to February 2007. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey. In April 2019, the Board remanded the instant matter to the RO for additional development. In October 2021, the case returned to the Board. The Board denied entitlement to service connection for a right leg disability and a left thigh disability. In addition, the Board denied entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for a lumbar spine disability. Lastly, the Board remanded the issues of entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability and an ingrown toenail disability for further development. In April 2022, the RO issued a rating decision that awarded service connection for an ingrown toenail disability. Thus, that issue is no longer before the Board. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. In February 2022, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. In April 2022, an addendum opinion was also obtained. The Board notes that the February 2022 and April 2022 VA medical opinions found that the Veteran's right hip disability was not related to military service because there were no complaints of right hip pain/problems during service. However, the Board notes that in February 2005, the Veteran fell off a bus while wearing all of her issued equipment and injured her shoulder and wrist. Moreover, in August 2005, the Veteran fell down the stairs and reported pain in her knees, shoulders, arms, back, and right upper leg. Accordingly, the Board finds these medical opinions to be inadequate because the VA examiner did not consider what impact the Veteran's in-service falls had on her hip, particularly the August 2005 fall in which she complained of right upper leg pain. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is required in order to obtain a thorough and well-reasoned medical opinion that is based on a complete set of facts. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate); Bloom v. West, 13 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999) (a medical opinion without supporting clinical data or other rationale does not provide the required degree of medical certainty). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records from November 8, 2021, to the present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right hip disability. The electronic claims file must be reviewed by the examiner. All indicated studies and testing must be conducted, and all pertinent symptomatology must be reported in detail. After a review of the claims file, the examiner should provide answers to the following questions: (A). Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's right hip disability had its onset in service, or is caused by or related at least in part to, her active service? (B). Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right hip disability was caused by or aggravated (worsened in severity) by any of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities? The examiner's opinion must specifically address the February 2005 and August 2005 in-service falls. In providing the requested opinions, the examiner should consider the Veteran's competent lay claims regarding the observable symptoms she has experienced. The VA examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. E. BLOWERS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Rescan, 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.