Citation Nr: 18140135 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 14-06 413 DATE: October 2, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from April 1990 to August 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida, in which the RO denied service connection for the two issues listed on the Title page as well as for a right elbow condition. The Veteran appeared and testified at a Board videoconference hearing held at the RO before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2015. A transcript of this hearing is associated with the claims file. Thereafter, in October 2015, the Board issued a decision in which it denied service connection for a right elbow disorder, but remanded the Veteran’s claims for service connection for a back disorder and a bilateral foot disorder for additional development. After said development was completed, the Board issued a decision in June 2016 denying the Veteran’s claims for service connection for back and bilateral foot disorders. The Veteran appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). By memorandum decision issued in June 2017, the Court vacated the Board’s June 2016 decision and remanded the Veteran’s appeal to the Board. In November 2017 the Board remanded this matter for further development consistent with the Court’s memorandum decision, to include so that supplemental medical opinions could be obtained that addressed the Veteran’s lay assertions of etiology (onset in service). Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder and bilateral foot disorder is remanded. Here, the Board finds that another remand of the Veteran’s claims is necessary to comply with the Court’s June 2017 memorandum decision. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In its decision, the Court essentially found that the Board erred in relying on the prior medical opinions obtained from VA examinations provided to the Veteran in March 2014 and December 2015 because the VA examiners who rendered those opinions failed to take into consideration the Veteran’s lay assertions concerning etiology of his conditions. In other words, the Court found that the VA examiners who opined that the Veteran’s current back disorder was not related to his military service failed to address whether there was any merit to the Veteran’s assertion that his low back disorder was caused by his report of lifting tank rounds in service. As to his bilateral foot disorder, the Court found that, although the VA examiner acknowledged that the in-service blisters were likely caused by the Veteran’s marching and addressed whether the currently diagnosed plantar fasciitis could be caused by the blisters, the VA examiner failed to address the Veteran’s lay assertion that the marching caused the Veteran’s current bilateral plantar fasciitis. Although the Board’s November 2017 remand clearly directed the prior VA examiner to address the Veteran’s specific contentions, pursuant to the March 2018 supplemental opinions the examiner failed to do so. The Board emphasizes that the Court has ordered that an adequate nexus opinion must address the Veteran’s contentions of onset in-service and the Board is unable to render a decision absent such an opinion. As a result, Board remands for the required opinion will continue until it is obtained. Further, the Board has determined that the opinion must be sought from a different VA clinician due to prior unsuccessful attempts to obtain it. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Please associate with the claims file all outstanding VA and non-VA medical records pertaining to the Veteran’s current back disorder and bilateral foot disorder. 2. After the record is determined to be complete, please obtain supplemental medical opinions -from a different VA clinician than the clinician who authored the March 2018 supplemental opinions- addressing the Veteran’s lay assertions of etiology (onset in service). An in-person examination should not be ordered unless asked for by the new clinician providing the requested medical opinions. a. Specifically, with regards to the back disorder, the new clinician is asked to consider whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed lumbosacral strain is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent probability or more) related to his report that he injured his back from lifting tank rounds in service. b. With regards to the bilateral foot disorder, the new clinician is asked to consider whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed bilateral plantar fasciitis is at least as likely as not (i.e., at least a 50 percent probability or more) related to long marches he performed during his active military service. The clinician should provide a complete explanation for all opinions given. If the clinician cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the clinician should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Fales, Associate Counsel