Citation Nr: 1320716 Decision Date: 06/27/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 09-22 501 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for plantar fasciitis of the right foot. 2. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for plantar fasciitis of the left foot. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Smith, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from November 2004 to August 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Board has considered documentation included in the Virtual VA system in reaching the determinations below. However, no new records pertinent to this appeal were found therein. 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 law provides that the VA shall make reasonable efforts to notify a claimant of the evidence necessary to substantiate a claim and requires the VA to assist a claimant in obtaining that evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Such assistance includes providing the claimant a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. In this case, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2007 in connection with her claims for increased evaluations for her bilateral fasciitis. As such, it has been six years since she was last examined. Moreover, the examiner specifically noted that the claims file was not available for review. Therefore, the Board finds that a more recent VA examination, based on a full review of the claims file, is needed to fully and fairly evaluate the Veteran's claims for increased ratings. See Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 526 (1995) (where the record does not adequately reveal current state of claimant's disability, fulfillment of statutory duty to assist requires a contemporaneous medical examination - particularly if there is no additional medical evidence that adequately addresses the level of impairment of the disability since the previous examination); VA is required to afford the Veteran a contemporaneous examination to assess the current nature, extent, and severity of his right and left knee disabilities. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); see also VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995), 60 Fed. Reg. 43186 (1995). In addition, the Veteran indicated in her June 2009 VA Form that she had participated in physical therapy and that the records would be submitted. However, it does not appear that such records were associated with the claims file. Similarly, the record shows that the Veteran has been receiving treatment at VA Medical Centers (VAMC) in Biloxi, Mississippi; Pensacola, Florida; Saginaw, Michigan; and Chicago, Illinois. While the claims file includes treatment records dated through April 2007 from Biloxi, July 2007 from Pensacola, November 2007 from Saginaw, and November 2008 from Chicago, more recent treatment records may now be available. Records generated by VA facilities that may have an impact on the adjudication of a claim are considered constructively in the possession of VA adjudicators during the consideration of a claim, regardless of whether those records are physically on file. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992). Therefore, on remand, the RO/AMC should obtain any outstanding records that are relevant to the issues on appeal. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO/AMC should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all health care providers who have provided treatment for her bilateral plantar fasciitis. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the RO/AMC should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. A specific request should be made for the physical therapy records identified in her June 2009 VA Form 9. The RO/AMC should also obtain any outstanding VA treatment records dated since 2007, including from the VA Medical Centers in Biloxi, Mississippi; Pensacola, Florida; Saginaw, Michigan; and Chicago, Illinois. 2. The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of her service-connected bilateral plantar fasciitis. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file and to comment on the severity of the Veteran's service-connected bilateral plantar fasciitis. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should report all signs and symptoms necessary for rating the Veteran's disabilities under the rating criteria. In particular, the examiner should indicate whether the Veteran's right and foot plantar fasciitis are moderate, moderately severe, or severe, and he or she should state whether there is actual loss of use of either foot. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Because it is important that each disability be viewed in relation to its history, copies of all pertinent records in the appellant's claims file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. 3. After the development requested has been completed, the RO/AMC should review the examination report to ensure that it is in compliance with the directives of this REMAND. If the report is deficient in any manner, the RO/AMC should implement corrective procedures. 4. After completing these actions, the RO/AMC should conduct any other development as may be indicated by a response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs. 5. When the development requested has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO/AMC on the basis of additional evidence. If any benefit sought is not granted, the appellant and her representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. 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. 2012). _________________________________________________ JESSICA J. WILLS 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).