Citation Nr: 1323308 Decision Date: 07/22/13 Archive Date: 08/01/13 DOCKET NO. 09-49 509 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, to include nerve damage and arthritis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Sara Schinnerer, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty for training from September 1986 to January 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2007 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (RO). The appeal is remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, DC. REMAND When the Board last reviewed the case in April 2012, it noted the appellant's contentions of a current bilateral foot disorder that began during active duty for training, as a result of poorly fitted boots, which caused extreme pain during basic training, to include a 24 mile-long road march in the desert of New Mexico. The Board further noted an October 1986 service treatment record, which shows complaints of blisters and infection on the left foot for approximately two weeks, as well as a physical examination report that shows a healing blister on his right foot above the first metatarsal phalangeal joint, with superficial inflammation. The Board also noted the appellant's current diagnosis of bilateral foot polyarthralgia, as well as findings consistent with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory arthritis, and Sjogren's Syndrome. Given the appellant's reports and testimony of painful feet since service, as well has his current diagnosis, the issue was remanded for a VA examination to determine if any current bilateral foot disorder was related to the appellant's active duty for training. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d)(2) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i) (2012); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The appellant was afforded a VA examination in January 2013 which resulted in a normal examination of the feet. Although the January 2013 VA examiner found that the appellant did not have any current diagnosable foot disorder, the requirement for a current disability is satisfied if there is evidence of the disability at any time since the appellant's claim in August 2007. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2008). The January 2013 VA opinion is inadequate for the purposes of adjudicating the appeal. Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide an adequate one or, at a minimum, notify the claimant why one will not or cannot be provided. Accordingly, a medical opinion addressing the etiology of the appellant's current bilateral foot disorder is necessary to make a determination in this case. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Accordingly, the case is remanded for the following actions: 1. The claims file and all records on Virtual VA must be made available to the January 2013 VA examiner, and the examiner must specify in the examination report that the claims file and Virtual VA records have been reviewed. If the VA examiner who conducted the January 2013 examination is unavailable, an appropriate VA examiner must be directed to provide the supplemental finding to the January 2013 VA examination. If the VA examiner determines another examination is necessary to provide the finding, an examination must be scheduled. The examiner must express an opinion as to whether the appellant's previously diagnosed polyarthralgia of the feet, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory arthritis, and Sjogren's Syndrome are related to his active duty for training. In answering this question, the examiner must consider all of the evidence of record, as well as the appellant's contentions of bilateral foot pain since active duty for training. To the extent possible, the examiner must comment on whether the finding of inflammation of the right foot above the first metatarsal phalangeal joint shown during service, was an early manifestation of the appellant's current right foot polyarthralgia. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. Additionally, the examiner must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. The report must be typed. 2. The addendum examination report must be reviewed by the RO to ensure that it is in complete compliance with the directives of this remand. If the report is deficient in any manner, the RO must implement corrective procedures. 3. After completing the above actions, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the paragraph above, the RO must readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder. If the claim remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the appellant and his representative. After the appellant and his representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. No action is required by the appellant until he receives further notice; however, he may present additional evidence or argument while the case is in remand status at the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). _________________________________________________ JOY A. MCDONALD 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).