Citation Nr: 18144610 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/24/18 DOCKET NO. 16-19 747A DATE: October 25, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left-hand disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right-hand disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from October 1973 to October 1976. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which, in pertinent part, denied service connection for back, left foot, right foot, left hand, right hand, left knee, and right knee disabilities. The Board notes that the Veteran has filed substantive appeals for the issues of service connection for headaches and high blood pressure and an initial increased rating for an unspecified trauma and stress-related disorder. However, to date, these issues have not been certified to the Board and will be adjudicated in a separate decision. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left-hand disability is remanded; 2. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is remanded; 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded; 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is remanded; 5. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded; 6. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded; 7. Entitlement to service connection for a right-hand disability is remanded. In June 2013, the Veteran filed a claim of service connection for disabilities relating to his feet, knees, back, and hands. He indicated that he injured his feet while running in his boots and incurred hand arthritis from training in service. Furthermore, his post-service treatment records dated in September 2013 indicate that he has suffered from low back pain since service and complained of knee pain for years. It is noted that the Veteran’s complete service-treatment records have not been obtained and only his entrance examination is of record. Throughout the pertinent time frame of this appeal, the Veteran has been assessed with bilateral knee osteoarthritis, foot pain and pes planus, and degenerative changes in the spine. Furthermore, he has complained of burning in his hands and feet. Given that there is an indication that the Veteran may have a present disability or disabilities or pain that results in functional impairment that is related to service, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any back or bilateral foot, knee, and/or hand disabilities. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006); see also Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018). Furthermore, the Veteran’s VA clinical records dated in September 2013 indicate that he was treating with an outside provider and orthopedist. Accordingly, the RO should attempt to obtain the Veteran’s pertinent private treatment records, along with his service-treatment records, on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Take all necessary steps to request the Veteran’s complete service-treatment records from October 1973 to October 1976. If this information or documentation is unavailable this fact should be documented and a formal finding of unavailability should be made with notice to the Veteran and his representative and they should be given an opportunity to respond. 2. Obtain and associate with the claims file the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records from July 2018 to the present. 3. Send a letter to the Veteran and his representative requesting that he provide sufficient information, including the medical provider’s name, location, and dates of treatment, and a signed dated authorization, for all relevant private treatment relating to his lumbar spine and bilateral knee, foot, and hand disabilities. All efforts to obtain these records should be associated with the claims file and the Veteran and his representative should be provided notification if any of the listed records are unavailable pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 4. After completion of #1, #2, and #3, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any lumbar spine and bilateral knee, foot, and hand disabilities. The claims folder, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner and such review should be noted in the examination report. The examiner should identify and discuss any lumbar spine, right knee, left knee, right foot, left foot, left hand, and right-hand disabilities found on examination and identified during the pendency of this claim, or from June 2013, including bilateral knee osteoarthritis, pes planus, and degenerative changes in the spine, and respond to the following: A. For any diagnosed disability, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran’s lumbar spine, right knee, left knee, right foot, left foot, left hand, and/or right-hand disabilities had their onset in and/or are otherwise etiologically related to his period of active service? B. If there is no diagnosed disability with regard to his back, bilateral knee, bilateral foot, and/or bilateral hand, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or more) that any pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity? Describe the impairment caused. If so, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or more) that this pain had its onset during and/or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s period of active duty service? The examiner should provide a comprehensive rationale for each opinion provided. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports are to be considered in formulating any opinion. If any opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner does not have the knowledge or training. As appropriate, the AOJ should conduct additional development or supplement the record. ERIC S. LEBOFF Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Hurley, Associate Counsel