Citation Nr: 18145885 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-35 716A DATE: October 30, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for calluses of the bilateral feet is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the further delay, a remand is required for additional development and adjudicative action. In a statement from the Veteran received by VA in March 2018, he indicated that his feet calluses have altered the way he walks and stands and that they affect his quality of life. He indicated he had been using TriWest healthcare to have his calluses shaved down approximately every four to five weeks and that he wished for VA to consider this in connection with his claim. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds a remand is required to obtain the Veteran’s outstanding TriWest healthcare records. In an August 2018 brief, the Veteran’s representative indicated that if the Board was unable to grant an increased evaluation for the Veteran’s calluses that his claim be remanded. Specifically, the representative indicated that the Veteran’s disability had worsened and that the last VA examination of record, dated January 2015, was too old to adequately evaluate the current state of the Veteran’s condition. The Board agrees and finds that a new examination is warranted on remand. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997) (holding that a Veteran was entitled to a new examination after a two year period between the last VA examination and the Veteran’s contention that his disability had increased in severity). The Board notes that Veteran’s calluses of the bilateral feet disability is rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7899-7806 (2017). When an unlisted condition is encountered, which requires an analogous rating, the first two digits of the diagnostic code present that part of the rating schedule most closely identifying the bodily part or system involved, with a “99” assigned as the last two digits representing all unlisted conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 4.27 (2017). Accordingly, the hyphenated code indicates that the Veteran’s calluses of the bilateral feet is evaluated by analogy under the criteria for skin disorders, specifically pursuant to Diagnostic Code 7806, which pertains to dermatitis or eczema. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. Given that there is no diagnostic code as part of the rating schedule which pertains to the Veteran’s disability, the Board finds the Veteran should be afforded both VA skin and VA foot disorders examinations on remand. On readjudication, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction should consider whether the Veteran’s disability is more appropriately rated under a diagnostic code pertaining to the feet rather than one pertaining to the skin. The most recent VA treatment records associated with the evidence before the Board are dated August 2016. On remand, all outstanding VA treatment records must be obtained and associated with the evidence of record. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the evidence of record. 2. Contact the Veteran and request that he complete and return a signed authorization to allow VA to attempt to obtain all identified private medical records on his behalf, to specifically include records from TriWest. If the Veteran submits any medical authorization that is insufficient for further action, he should be notified, and any such notification should be properly documented in the claims file. Upon receipt of any valid medical authorization, VA must attempt to obtain any identified private records in accordance with VA regulation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 3. Following completion of steps 1 and 2, afford the Veteran the appropriate VA foot and skin examination(s) to determine the functional impairment caused by his service-connected bilateral calluses of the feet. The examiner must obtain from the Veteran and document in the examination report all symptomatology due to the Veteran’s bilateral calluses of the feet and all functional and occupational impairment resulting from that disability (to include accommodations and/or time lost from work). If the examiner finds that the Veteran has any nonservice-connected disabilities of the feet on examination, the examiner must attempt to distinguish which symptoms are attributable to the service-connected disability and which are attributable to any nonservice-connected disabilities found. A complete rationale for all opinions MUST be provided. If the examiner is unable to provide any opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she must indicate why this is so. 4. The Veteran is informed that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled examinations and to cooperate in the development of the claim and that the consequences for failure to report for any VA examination without good cause may include denial of a claim. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2017). In the event that the Veteran does not report for any scheduled examination, documentation showing that he was properly notified of the examination must be associated with the record. 5. The AOJ must ensure full compliance with the directives of this remand, to specifically include affording the Veteran both VA skin AND foot examinations. The AOJ must also ensure that any opinions provided in those examination reports are supported by an adequate rationale. If the AOJ finds that any examination reports are missing or are inadequate in any way, corrective action must be taken at once. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that RO compliance with remand directives is not discretionary or optional and that the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance). (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 6. Then, the Veteran’s claim must be readjudicated. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, the Veteran and his representative must be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be given an adequate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jessica O'Connell, Associate Counsel