Citation Nr: A25035350 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 210804-176982 DATE: April 16, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left hip arthritis is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's left hip arthritis had onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left hip arthritis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1988 to October 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2021 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In that decision, the RO denied service connection for a left hip condition. In the August 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) on April 14, 2025. Although a transcript of the hearing has not yet been associated with the claims file, as the benefit sought is being granted in full, a delay to wait for the transcript is unnecessary. The claim has been advanced on the docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. SERVICE CONNECTION Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Left hip arthritis The Veteran contends that he has had left hip pain in and since service. The Veteran has a diagnosis of left hip arthritis as evidenced in the VA treatment records. See March 2016, August 2016 and November 2019 VA treatment records. Thus, the current disability requirement for service connection has been met. Regarding in-service injury, the Veteran testified at the April 2025 Board hearing and stated that he injured his left hip when he fell down a hill while training in a jungle in Japan. He stated that he was told to get up and keep moving. His left hip continued to bother him when he returned to the United States; however, did not seek treatment because he feared that doing so would result in discipline. This lay statement regarding in-service injury is internally consistent, consistent with the other evidence of record, and consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a) (each disabling condition for which a veteran seeks service connection must be considered based on factors including the basis of places, types, and circumstances of service as shown by service records). Thus, the in-service injury requirement has been met. The remaining question is whether the left hip arthritis is related to or had onset in service. During the April 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he continued to experience left hip pain since separation from service. He further testified, and VA treatment records indicate, that he complained about left hip pain. He discussed the left hip pain with his treating physician who advised him to continue taking over-the-counter medication for the pain. The Veteran's competent, credible, lay statements of left hip symptoms from the time of the in-service injury until the post service diagnosis are sufficient to warrant service connection in the absence of an adequate and probative negative nexus opinion. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[N]othing in the regulatory or statutory provisions [relating to evidence to be considered] require both medical and competent lay evidence; rather, they make clear that competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself"). To the extent that the grant of service connection is based primarily on lay evidence, "[i]f the Board concludes that the lay evidence presented by a veteran is credible and ultimately competent, the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence should not be an absolute bar to the veteran's ability to prove his claim of entitlement to disability benefits based on that competent lay evidence." Id. at 1337. At this point, the Board could remand the claim for a VA examination or opinion. However, a request for an opinion could be construed as obtaining additional evidence for the sole purpose of denying the claim, which is impermissible. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (c) ("The development of evidence in connection with claims for service connection will be accomplished when deemed necessary but it should not be undertaken when evidence present is sufficient for this determination"); Andrews v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 216, 225 (2021) ("Remand is inappropriate where the predominant purpose is not to allow the Board to make a fully informed decision unencumbered by error but to allow VA to obtain more evidence so that it can properly deny the claim"). For the above reason, the evidence is approximately evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's left hip arthritis is related to service. As the reasonable doubt created by this relative equipoise in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, entitlement to service connection for left hip arthritis is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Hemphill, 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.