Citation Nr: 18142940 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 13-29 075 DATE: October 17, 2018 REMANDED 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, to include residuals of left foot ulcer and plantar fasciitis, and to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus type II, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis, and to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus type II, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to February 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the August 2017 Board remand, the Board requested that the Veteran undergo a VA examination to address whether any bilateral foot disabilities, to include bilateral plantar fasciitis and left foot ulcer is related to his service, and to address his contention that he was issued and wore shoes that were too small for his feet while in service. The Board also requested the physician to address whether his service connected diabetes mellitus, type II, caused or aggravated his bilateral foot disabilities. In an October 2017 VA examination, the examiner provided a diagnosis of bilateral arthritis and opined current complaints of pain/tingling in his feet is more likely related to his service-connected peripheral neuropathy and that there is no indication of current foot conditions that are directly related to the resolved in-service dorsal left foot ulcer in 1968. With regard to secondary service connection, the examiner provided a negative opinion based on the rationale that his pain and tingling is related to his diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Here, the Board finds the opinion is inadequate because the examiner offered an opinion as to only symptoms related to his peripheral neuropathy, and thus, failed to address the etiology of the diagnosed bilateral arthritis and bilateral plantar fasciitis, with consideration of the Veteran’s contention that the shoes he was given in service caused his current bilateral foot disability, as requested by the Board. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Further, the Board points out that the Veteran submitted two articles, one of which was submitted in March 2011 and that explains wearing shoes with poor cushioning and repetitive nature of training can cause plantar fasciitis. The second article submitted in September 2017 explains that studies have shown that diabetics are more prone to developing plantar fasciitis. However, the examiner did not address these articles or the reasoning therein. Thus, an addendum opinion addressing the above is required. As the matters are being remanded, and it appears that the Veteran continues to receive treatment through VA, updated VA treatment records should also be obtained. See Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 793 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Request an opinion from an appropriate VA physician addressing the below. (A full VA examination should not be scheduled unless it is deemed necessary by the evaluator or otherwise required by the evidence.) The evaluator should review the electronic records contained in the electronic claims file, including a copy of this remand. Based on review of the record, the physician should determine: (a) whether any bilateral foot disability, to include residuals of a left foot ulcer and bilateral plantar fasciitis, is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) causally related to the Veteran's service, to include his contention that he was issued and wore shoes that were too small for his feet while in service, and or, (b) whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) his bilateral foot disability, to include residuals of a left foot ulcer and bilateral plantar fasciitis, was caused or aggravated (permanently worsened beyond normal progression of the disorder) by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II. In answering the above, the physician should address the Veteran contentions, to include the articles submitted in March 2011 and September 2017, as noted above. The physician is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and treatment, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions. (Continued on the next page)   A complete rationale should accompany any opinion provided. DAVID GRATZ Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Sarah Campbell