Citation Nr: 18146107
Decision Date: 10/31/18	Archive Date: 10/30/18

DOCKET NO. 16-11 061
DATE:	October 31, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus, with surgery on the right foot, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from September 1987 to April 1993.
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus, with surgery on the right foot, is remanded.
The Board finds that additional development is required for the claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus with surgery on the right foot.  While the Board regrets further delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the claim.
The Veteran contends that a bilateral pes planus disability is related to service.  In a December 2015 report of general information and in a March 2016 appeal form, the Veteran stated that he had surgery on his right foot while serving in Germany in 1988 or 1989.  The Veteran stated that he used a British medical clinic, and was told he had heel spurs on both feet.  A remand is necessary to attempt to obtain any medical records from service regarding any possible foot complaints, treatment, or diagnoses.
VA’s statutory duty to assist the Veteran includes the duty to conduct a thorough examination so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one.  Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997).  Assistance by VA includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2017); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).  When the medical evidence is inadequate, VA must supplement the record by seeking an advisory opinion or ordering another medical examination.  Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 213 (1992).  Therefore, a remand is necessary to obtain a VA examination which considers any records regarding foot conditions, and the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his foot surgery during service.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Identify any VA or private medical records of treatment that are not already of record and associate them with the claims file.  That should specifically include any medical records from British clinics or hospitals at which the Veteran may have had foot surgery or treatment in 1988 or 1989 while stationed in Germany.  All efforts to obtain those records and any negative responses should be included in the claims file.
2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any bilateral foot disability.  The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report.  All tests and studies deemed necessary by the examiner must be performed.  Based on a review of the claims file and the clinical findings of the examination, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any foot disability, including pes planus or residuals of a right foot surgery, was incurred in service or was aggravated as a result of active service.  A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions and conclusions.  The examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s statements regarding a right foot surgery during service.
 
Harvey P. Roberts
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	H. Ahmad, Associate Counsel