Citation Nr: 1552091 Decision Date: 12/14/15 Archive Date: 12/23/15 DOCKET NO. 11-30 999 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Reddington INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1990 to November 1993. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2009 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2015, a videoconference hearing was scheduled; however, the Veteran failed to report. His hearing request is deemed withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.702(d). The appeal is being REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the appellant if further action on his part is required. REMAND The Veteran contends that he injured his feet and left ankle in service. He appears to allege injury due to running and stepping into a pothole and/or when completing airborne jumps. His service personnel records indicate that he received a Parachute Badge. His service treatment records indicate that the Veteran complained of left and right foot pain in October 1991 and indicated he twisted his ankle in a pot hole while running. [It is unclear which ankle was twisted.] On September 2009 VA feet examination, the examiner noted diagnoses of mild pes planus bilaterally of hereditary origin, bilateral plantar fasciitis unrelated to military service, inactive gout of the right first metatarsophalangeal joint without correlation to military service, and chronic ankle pain, right more than left, that may be attributable to capsulitis and which at least as likely as not presents a continuity of complaint dating to military service. The Board finds that this medical opinion is inadequate as the examiner did not provide adequate rationale and explanation for why the Veteran's feet diagnoses were unrelated to his service. Further, the examiner seemed to find that the Veteran had an ankle condition related to ankle problems in service; however, the only diagnosis given was chronic ankle pain that "may" be attributable to capsulitis. Accordingly, the Board finds that additional development is warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1 Obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers who treated the Veteran for feet and/or left ankle complaints since August 2011. Take all appropriate action to obtain those records. 2. Then, the AOJ should arrange for an appropriate examination(s) of the Veteran to determine the likely etiology of any disability of the feet and left ankle diagnosed. The record must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination(s). Following examination of the Veteran and review of his record, the examiner should provide opinions that respond to the following: (a) Identify all disabilities of the feet diagnosed during the pendency of the appeal, to specifically include plantar fasciitis and pes planus. (b) As to each disability of the feet diagnosed, is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or greater probability) related to the Veteran's service, to include as due to treatment therein and/or as due to his duties completing airborne jumps? (c) Identify all left ankle disability diagnosed during the pendency of the appeal. The examiner should specifically discuss the findings on September 2009 VA examination and indicate whether the notation of chronic ankle pain is representative of an underlying diagnosed disability. (d) If a left ankle disability is diagnosed, is it at least as likely as not (a 50% or greater probability) related to the Veteran's service, to include treatment therein and/or as due to his duties completing airborne jumps? The examiner is advised that the Veteran received a parachute badge in service indicating he completed an Airborne Course and was qualified to participate in airborne operations. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. 3. Thereafter, the AOJ should review the record and readjudicate the claims on appeal. If any remains denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, afford the Veteran and his representative opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014). _________________________________________________ M. E. LARKIN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2014), 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) (2015).