Citation Nr: 0814218 Decision Date: 04/30/08 Archive Date: 05/08/08 DOCKET NO. 06-29 163 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus (claimed as flat feet). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Georgia Department of Veterans Services ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Linda E. Mosakowski, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1950 to October 1952. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2005 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia, that denied service connection. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, D.C. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND Unfortunately, a remand is required in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4), VA will provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion based upon a review of the evidence of record if VA determines it is necessary to decide the claim. A medical examination or medical opinion is necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim but (1) contains competent lay or medical evidence of a current diagnosed disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) establishes that the veteran suffered an event, injury, or disease in service; and (3) indicates that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease in service. The third part could be satisfied by competent evidence showing post-service treatment for a condition or other possible association with military service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The November 2005 podiatry consult records show that the veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral pes planus. The only document from the veteran's service medical records that is available is his separation examination, because the rest of his records are presumed to have been destroyed in a fire. That October 1952 separation examination shows that he had symptomatic pes planus. In a July 2005 statement, the veteran explained that he never had any problems with his feet before service or during basic training, but after having to jump on and off the treads of a tank, he began to have trouble with his feet. His October 2004 claim indicates that during 1952, he was issued arch supports for his feet. He submitted a buddy statement that during service the veteran was relieved from some marching duty because of his feet. Thus, the record shows pes planus during service. There is little evidence that the current condition is related to the in-service pes planus. In his October 2004 claim, the veteran stated that there had been no treatment for pes planus since he was discharged from service in 1952. And the November 2005 and March 2006 podiatry consult records show that the veteran has other conditions of his feet. Yet, the November 2005 podiatry consult notes shows that the examiner discussed with the veteran the procedures for obtaining service connection. And in his November 2005 notice of disagreement, the veteran merely states that the pain comes and goes. He has never explicitly addressed whether the condition has been continuous from the time of separation of service. Given that the condition was symptomatic at discharge, a podiatry examiner discussed the procedures for service connection, and the same condition exists now that existed then, the Board finds that a medical opinion as to the etiology of the veteran's current pes planus is needed. Moreover, as part of that examination, the examiner should take a complete history from the veteran as to his symptoms from the time of his separation of service until the present. The veteran is hereby notified that it is the veteran's responsibility to report for the examination and to cooperate in the development of the case, and that the consequences of failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158 and 3.655. Since two years has elapsed since the date of the last medical treatment records with respect to the veteran's feet, the RO/AMC should make arrangements to obtain any treatment records dated since March 2006 and associate those records with the claims folder. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the veteran to identify all treatment facilities where he was treated for pes planus since March 2006 and make arrangements to obtain any identified records. Associate any evidence with the claims folder. 2. Make arrangements for the veteran to have an appropriate examination to determine the etiology of his bilateral pes planus. The claims folder, to include a copy of this Remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination report. Any indicated studies should be performed. A complete history of symptoms since the veteran's October 1952 separation from service should be obtained from the veteran. The examination report must provide complete rationale for all opinions and must address the following matter: Is it at least as likely as not (that is, a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any current pes planus had its onset during military service or is related to military service? 3. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the claim remains denied, provide the veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case. Allow an appropriate period for response. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ P. M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).