Citation Nr: 18146765 Decision Date: 11/01/18 Archive Date: 11/01/18 DOCKET NO. 15-42 791A DATE: November 1, 2018 REMANDED The issue of service connection for a left shoulder disorder is remanded. The issue of service connection for a lumbar spine disorder is remanded. The issue of service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded. The issue of service connection for a right knee disorder is remanded. The issue of service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The issue of service connection for a left eye disorder, to include as a residual of a traumatic brain injury (TBI), is remanded. The issue of service connection for frequent loss of balance and dizziness, to include as a residual of a TBI, is remanded. The issue of service connection for cognitive impairment, to include as a residual of a TBI, is remanded. The issue of service connection for a temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ) is remanded. The issue of service connection for a sinus disorder is remanded. The issue of service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. The issue of service connection for a left foot neurological disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the U.S. Navy and had honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. He had additional non-qualifying service for which compensation benefits are unavailable. The issues of service connection for a left shoulder disorder, a lumbar spine disorder, a left knee disorder, a right knee disorder, bilateral hearing loss, a left eye disorder, frequent loss of balance and dizziness, cognitive impairment, a TMJ disorder, a sinus disorder, sleep apnea, and a left foot neurological disorder are remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Reasons for the remand: The Veteran has not been afforded any VA examinations. In an October 2015 memorandum, the VA Regional Office (RO) indicated that it contacted the correctional facility where the Veteran is incarcerated and asked to have the Veteran examined. The chief physician and surgeon at the facility responded saying that the facility could not complete the examinations but that they would send the Veteran to a VA facility if VA paid for transportation, or, alternatively, that VA could send providers to the facility to complete the examinations. Based on this response, the RO concluded that the examinations could not be completed. Remand is necessary to conduct VA examinations. IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA shoulder examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any left shoulder disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address whether a left shoulder disorder was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *July 1989 examination where the Veteran was normal and report of medical history where the Veteran did not report any shoulder complaints. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 124-127. *August 1990 service treatment record (STR) indicating that the Veteran was treated following a motor vehicle accident and fall. He was diagnosed with a mild sprain of the trapezius. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 37. *April 1993 STR indicating treatment for left shoulder complaints. The Veteran was diagnosed with a muscle spasm. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 6. *May 1994 examination where the Veteran was normal and report of medical history where the Veteran did not report any shoulder complaints. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 120-123. *September 1994 STR indicating a left shoulder injury and a diagnosis of left shoulder contusion. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 105-106. *March 2011 claim form where the Veteran reported a left torn rotator cuff in service. It is unclear whether the Veteran contends that this occurred during his period of honorable service. *November 2011 private treatment record indicating complaints of left shoulder pain. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 57. *May 2013 private treatment record indicating left shoulder pain that had been going on for 20 years. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 61. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA lumbar spine examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any lumbar spine disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address whether a lumbar spine disorder was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *April 1987 STRs indicating treatment for lumbar spine complaints. The diagnosis was acute lumbar strain and muscle strain. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 91, 93, 97. *April 1987 lumbar spine X-ray which indicated spina bifida occulta of the L5 with bilateral spondylitic defects and spondylolisthesis. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 23. *February 1988 STRs indicating treatment for lumbar spine complaints. The Veteran was diagnosed with lumbar spine sprain and strain and severe lumbar pain versus muscle sprain in the lumbar region. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 71-72, 76. *July 1989 examination where the Veteran was normal and report of medical history where the Veteran did not report any lumbar spine complaints. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 124-127. *August 1990 STR indicating that the Veteran was in a motor vehicle accident and had a fall. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 37. *May 1994 examination where the Veteran was normal and report of medical history where the Veteran did not report any lumbar spine complaints. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 120-123. *August 2006 lumbar spine MRI study indicating spondylolisthesis, bilateral neural foraminal stenosis, and disc bulging. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 40. *November 2007 private lumbar spine MRI study indicating disc degeneration and spondylolisthesis or lumbosacral lordosis. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 18. *November 2009 private treatment record indicating back complaints. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 6. *March 2011 claim form where the Veteran reported that his lumbar spine disability was caused by years of “duck walking” with a pressurized hose during fire-fighting training, running up and down ladders and on steel deck plates, and carrying heavy equipment as far as ½ mile several times per day. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA knee examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any left or right knee disorders. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address the following: (a.) Whether a left knee disorder was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. (b.) Whether a right knee disorder was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *July 1989 examination where the Veteran was normal and report of medical history where the Veteran did not report any right or left knee complaints. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 124-127. *August 1990 STR indicating that the Veteran was in a motor vehicle accident and had a fall. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 37. *August 1990 STR indicating right knee complaints. The Veteran was diagnosed with probable Osgood-Schlatter disease. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 39. *August 1990 right knee X-ray study indicating that the knee was normal. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 19. *December 1993 STR indicating treatment for right knee complaints. The Veteran was diagnosed with tibial tuberosity tenderness and Osgood Schlatter disease. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 2. *May 1994 examination where the Veteran was normal and report of medical history where the Veteran did not report any right or left knee complaints. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 120-123. *September 2004 left knee MRI study indicating that the knee was normal. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 52. *December 2005 private treatment record where the Veteran reported right and left knee pain that had been going on for several years. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 24. *March 2006 knee X-ray studies indicating that the left knee was normal and the right knee had degenerative changes involving the right tibial tuberosity and distal patellar tendon. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 36. *November 2009 private treatment record where the Veteran reported pain in his knees. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 6. *March 2011 claim form where the Veteran reported that his right and left knee disabilities were caused by years of “duck walking” with a pressurized hose during fire-fighting training, running up and down ladders and on steel deck plates, and carrying heavy equipment as far as ½ mile several times per day. *July 2014 private knee X-ray study indicating that both knees were normal. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 51. 5. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any left or right ear hearing loss. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address whether right or left ear hearing loss was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *STRs indicating that the Veteran was in a hearing conservation program and that he worked in an engine room. He had audiological examinations in June 1986, December 1988, June 1989, April 1991, October 1992, June 1993, and May 1994. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 61, 67, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78. *STR indicating that the Veteran had in-service exposure to high noise and that he wore earplugs during several periods of service, including from April 1990 to September 1992. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 80. *May 1994 examination which included a hearing test and report of medical history where the Veteran did not indicate he had difficulty hearing. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 120-123. *November 2009 private treatment record where the Veteran reported difficulty hearing in the left ear. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 6. *March 2011 claim form on which the Veteran reported in-service noise exposure working in submarine engine rooms. 6. Schedule the Veteran for a VA eye examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any left eye disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. . IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address whether a left eye disorder was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *STRs containing vision test results from June 1986, August 1987, November 1988, March 1990, and December 1993. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 25, 27, 29, 30, 31. *July 1986 eye examination. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 130. *July 1986 STRs indicating treatment for eye complaints and stating a diagnosis of conjunctivitis. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 112 113. *July 1989 examination which included vision test results and a report of medical history where the Veteran indicated that he wore glasses or contact lenses. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 124-127. *August to October 1989 STRs indicating that the Veteran had eye discharge and was treated for corneal infiltrates, a corneal abrasion, and conjunctivitis. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 42-44, 48. *May 1994 examination which included vision test results and a report of medical history where the Veteran indicated that he wore glasses or contact lenses. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 120-123. *February 2005 private treatment record indicating that the Veteran was treated for 2 left eye blind spots. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 42. *November 2007 private treatment record indicating that the Veteran was treated for complaints of a left eye blind spot and that he had a history of a retinal nerve disorder. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 16. *February 2011 private treatment record indicating a history of macular degeneration versus central serous retinopathy. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 3. *March 2011 claim form stating that the Veteran’s eye disorder began because of a head injury incurred during the Veteran’s period of other than honorable service for which he is unable to receive VA benefits. *April 2011 private treatment record indicating treatment for a left eye blind spot and central serous retinopathy. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 1. *March 2012 private treatment record indicating that the Veteran had a left eye blind spot, central serous retinopathy, a loss of depth perception, and dizziness. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 58. *October 2012 private treatment record indicating treatment for eye complaints. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 59. *April 2013 private treatment record indicating treatment for eye strain and vision complaints. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 60. *June 2013 private vision examination. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 55. 7. Schedule the Veteran for a VA TBI examination WITH ONE OF THE FOUR TYPES OF APPROVED EXAMINERS to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any TBI residuals. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address the following: (a.) Whether the Veteran had a TBI during his period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. (b.) If so, whether the Veteran has residuals of a TBI that occurred during his period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. (c.) If so, identify all residuals of the TBI. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *August 1990 STR indicating that the Veteran was in a motor vehicle accident and had a fall. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 37. *May 1994 examination where no TBI or residuals was noted and report of medical history where the Veteran did not report any history of a TBI. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 120-123. *July and August 1997 STRs, which fall outside of the Veteran’s period of honorable service, indicating treatment for a head injury and subsequent operation for an epidural hematoma. VBMS Entry 5/30/2014. *May 2003 private treatment record indicating that there were concerns about the Veteran’s mental health. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 53. *February 2011 private treatment record where the Veteran had complaints of memory loss. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 3. *March 2011 claim form stating that the Veteran incurred a TBI during his period of other than honorable service for which he is unable to receive VA benefits. *March 2012 private treatment record indicating that the Veteran had complaints of dizziness. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 58. 8. Schedule the Veteran for a VA TMJ examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any TMJ disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. . IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address whether a TMJ disorder was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *May 1994 examination where the Veteran was normal and report of medical history where the Veteran did not report any jaw complaints. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 120-123. *March 2011 claim form stating that the Veteran’s TMJ began because of an assault and head injury which occurred during the Veteran’s period of other than honorable service for which he is unable to receive VA benefits. 9. Schedule the Veteran for a VA sleep disorders examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of sleep apnea. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address whether sleep apnea was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *March 2011 claim form on which the Veteran indicated that he believed his sleep apnea was caused or aggravated by a sinus disorder. *May 2012 private treatment record indicating that the Veteran was referred for a sleep study due to untreated and worsening sleep apnea. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 74. *August 2012 private sleep study report stating that the Veteran had sleep apnea. VBMS Entry 9/10/2013, p. 1-3. *August 2013 supplemental claim form on which the Veteran indicated that sleep apnea was a residual of a TBI or was caused or aggravated by a TBI residual. 10. Schedule the Veteran for a VA sinus disorders examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any sinus disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address whether a sinus disorder was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *STRs dated between October 1986 and November 1993 indicating frequent treatment for sinus complaints and diagnoses of upper respiratory infections, influenza, recurrent sinusitis, left maxillary sinusitis, tonsillitis, seasonal allergies, rule out strep throat, and rule out mononucleosis. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26, 30, 31, 55, 75, 76, 81, 92, 98, 102. *July 1989 report of medical history where the Veteran indicated that he had sinusitis. On his examination at that time, no disorder was noted. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 124-127. *May 1991 sinus X-ray study indicating that the sinuses were clear. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 17. *December 1992 sinus X-ray study that was negative for any findings. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 15. *May 1994 examination where the Veteran was normal and report of medical history where the Veteran did not report any sinus complaints. VBMS Entry 9/15/2004, p. 120-123. *March 2011 claim form on which the Veteran reported that his sinus disorder was caused by exposure to acidic fumes from paint when he painted in a room on the U.S.S. Daniel Webster with no ventilation or respirator mask. It is unclear whether this claimed event occurred during the Veteran’s period of honorable service. 11. Schedule the Veteran for a VA foot examination to obtain an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any left foot disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. IF THE EXAMINATION MAY NOT FEASIBLY BE CONDUCTED GIVEN THE VETERAN’S INCARCERATION, THE RO WILL OBTAIN ALL THE VETERAN’S MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT RECORDS FROM THE PRISON FACILITY AND REQUEST THAT A SUITABLY-QUALIFIED EXAMINER CONDUCT A FILE REVIEW TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS POSED. See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (VA is required to tailor its assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement). All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner should address whether a left foot disorder was caused by any event, injury, disorder, or disorder, or in any way originated, during the Veteran’s period of honorable service from June 9, 1986, to November 30, 1994. The examiner’s attention is drawn to the following: *March 2006 left foot X-ray study report which indicated that there was a small accessory navicular bone but otherwise the foot was normal. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 37. *January 2007 private treatment record indicating that the Veteran had complaints of foot pain. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 15. *January 2007 private left foot X-ray study report which indicated that the foot was normal. VBMS Entry 8/1/2013, p. 17. *March 2011 claim form on which the Veteran indicated that he believed that left foot numbness was caused by nerve impairment due to his lumbar spine disorder. 12. Conduct any other necessary development, including any other examinations required to fully address the Veteran’s claims. 13. Readjudicate the issues on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. E. Miller, Associate Counsel