Citation Nr: 1325923 Decision Date: 08/15/13 Archive Date: 08/26/13 DOCKET NO. 11-31 121 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar warts. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Lauren Murphy, Agent ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD W. Yates, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1987 to June 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The appeal is remanded to the RO. REMAND The RO issued its most recent Statement of the Case in September 2011. Thereafter, the Veteran submitted a service personnel record to the RO indicating that he was placed on light duty status in July 1988. This evidence has not been considered by the RO. As the Veteran has not submitted a waiver of RO consideration of this additional evidence, the RO must review the additional evidence received and issue an supplemental statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 20.1304 (2012). As the basis for the light duty status assignment remains unclear, the RO must obtain the Veteran's complete service personnel records. The RO obtained a medical opinion concerning the disabilities on appeal in July 2010. A review of the July 2010 examination report indicates that the VA examiner failed to acknowledge the Veteran's inservice treatment for plantar warts on the left foot in December 1988. Moreover, the examiner's opinion was provided without any consideration of the Veteran's inservice assignment to light duty status. Under these circumstances, the RO must schedule the Veteran for the appropriate examination to determine whether he currently has bilateral pes planus and/or bilateral plantar warts that are related to his military service. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (finding that if VA provides the Veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d. 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that a layperson is competent to identify observable symptoms). Accordingly, the case is remanded for the following action: 1. The RO must contact the Veteran and afford him the opportunity to identify or submit any additional pertinent evidence in support of his claims. Based on his response, the RO must attempt to procure copies of all records which have not previously been obtained from identified treatment sources. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file by the RO. Regardless of the Veteran's response, the RO must obtain the Veteran's complete service personnel record file. If, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records the RO is unable to secure same, the RO must notify the Veteran and (a) identify the specific records the RO is unable to obtain; (b) briefly explain the efforts that the RO made to obtain those records; (c) describe any further action to be taken by the RO with respect to the claim; and (d) that he is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence. The Veteran and his representative must then be given an opportunity to respond. 2. The Veteran must be afforded the appropriate VA examinations to determine whether any currently or previously diagnosed bilateral pes planus and bilateral plantar warts are related to his military service. All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail. Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies must be accomplished. The claims file and all electronic records, to include on Virtual VA, must be made available to the examiner, and the examiner must specify in the examination report that these records have been reviewed. The examiner must specify the dates encompassed by the Virtual VA records that were reviewed. Based on the clinical examination, a review of the evidence of record, and with consideration of the Veteran's statements, the examiner must state whether any currently or previously diagnosed bilateral pes planus was incurred in the Veteran's active duty service. The examiner must also state whether any currently or previously diagnosed bilateral plantar warts, which were noted on the Veteran's service entrance examination, were aggravated by his military service. 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. The examiner must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. 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 prepared must be typed. 3. The RO must notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for any examination scheduled, and to cooperate in the development of the claims. The consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claims. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2012). In the event that the Veteran does not report for any scheduled examination, documentation must be obtained and associated with the Veteran's claims file that shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to his last known address. Documentation must be also be obtained and associated with the Veteran's claims file demonstrating any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. 4. The examination report must be reviewed 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. 5. 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 paragraphs above, the claims remaining on appeal must be readjudicated. If any claim remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran 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 Veteran 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).