Citation Nr: 1318752 Decision Date: 06/10/13 Archive Date: 06/21/13 DOCKET NO. 09-36 746 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Berry, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1980 to August 1984. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision dated in October 2008 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran contends that his flat feet were permanently aggravated during military service due to prolonged standing and marching. His October 1977 entrance examination reflects that the Veteran was diagnosed with mild pes planus. Thus, the flat feet were noted at the time of enlistment and the Veteran is not entitled to the presumption of soundness. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b) (2012). The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in September 2008. The examiner noted that the Veteran admitted to having a flat foot deformity before entering service and it was noted on the entrance examination. He also observed that there was no formal treatment for his flat foot condition during military service. He determined that the Veteran's Achilles tendinitis and plantar fasciitis most likely are attributed to or aggravated by his flat foot condition. However, these conditions may have subsequently developed secondary to normal wear and tear and everyday life. The examiner concluded that it would be speculation that these medical conditions developed solely due to the existence of the flatfoot condition and his military service. The Board notes that the VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral severe collapsing flat foot deformity. However, he did not provide any opinion on whether the Veteran's pre-existing flat feet were aggravated during active military service. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain an additional VA opinion. The Veteran testified during the April 2011 Board hearing that he sought treatment for his bilateral flat foot disorder within one year of being discharged from military service in 1985. The RO should elicit from the Veteran additional information in an attempt to obtain these treatment records. Furthermore, the Veteran reported in a February 2011 VA treatment record that he has applied for Social Security Disability benefits with respect to his flat feet. The duty to assist includes requesting information and records from the Social Security Administration (SSA). See Hayes v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1996) (SSA records potentially relevant where the veteran testified at a hearing that he was granted Social Security benefits as a result of the various disabilities for which he is also seeking additional benefits from the VA); see also 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(A)(c)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). Unfortunately, the SSA records are not associated with the claims folder. They must be obtained on remand. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide any additional information necessary to obtain the treatment records for his flat feet dated from 1985 and obtain the appropriate consent, if necessary, to obtain these records. 2. Contact the SSA and request copies of any disability determinations and medical records used by that agency in making such determinations on behalf of the Veteran for SSA benefits purposes. 3. After completing the foregoing and associating any additional evidence with the claims file, send the claims folder, including a copy of this Remand, to the VA examiner who conducted the VA examination in September 2008 to provide a supplemental opinion with respect to the Veteran's aggravation claim for bilateral flat foot. If that examiner is unavailable, forward the claims folder to an appropriate examiner to obtain the necessary opinion. If it is determined that an opinion cannot be provided without an examination, the Veteran should be scheduled for an examination. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file and offer an opinion with respect to the following: Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's pre-existing bilateral flat foot disability was aggravated (permanently worsened) beyond the natural progression of the disability as the result of, or during, the Veteran's active service The examiner should provide an explanation for all conclusions reached based on the evidence of record and medical principles. 4. Upon completion of the foregoing, readjudicate the Veteran's claim. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedure, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration, if in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ M. E. LARKIN 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) (2012).