Citation Nr: 18149480 Decision Date: 11/09/18 Archive Date: 11/09/18 DOCKET NO. 14-12 893 DATE: November 9, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hallux valgus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from November 1976 to December 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the July 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). This matter was previously before the Board in January 2018, in which it was remanded for the Veteran to undergo a new VA examination. Specifically, in its January 2018 remand, the Board found that the Veteran’s April 2012 VA foot examination was inadequate as the examiner provided an insufficient rationale for the negative opinion provided. As an initial matter, the Veteran’s service treatment records note documentation for a bilateral foot infection. Pursuant to the Board’s January 2018 remand, the Veteran underwent a VA foot examination in August 2018. The examiner noted that the Veteran is diagnosed with bilateral hallux valgus. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral hallux valgus is less likely than not related to his military service. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s diagnosis of bilateral hallux valgus was first based on X-ray completed in March 2012 and again during the August 2018 examination. However, the only rationale provided for the examiner’s negative opinion is that the examination showed small bilateral bunions which do not cause any symptoms or interference in mobility. The Board finds that this rationale is inadequate as it does not discuss the Veteran’s in-service foot condition or the Veteran’s contentions that his current bilateral hallux valgus is related to his military service and therefore a remand is warranted for an addendum opinion. On remand, the examiner should discuss whether the Veteran’s in-service foot condition is related to his current bilateral hallux valgus. Since the claims file is being remanded, it should be updated to include any outstanding VA treatment records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate those documents with the Veteran’s claims file. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral hallux valgus that has been present during the period on appeal. An in-person examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. After reviewing the record, to include the Veteran’s lay testimony, the examiner is asked to address the following: Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater), that the Veteran’s bilateral hallux valgus, was caused by service, or is otherwise related to the Veteran’s military service, to include his in-service treatment for a foot condition? All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained and an adequate rationale for any conclusions reached must be provided. The examiner is directed to review the Veteran’s service treatment records which document treatment for a bilateral foot infection. If any requested opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation, the medical professional should state and explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. (Continued on the next page)   3. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Mountford, Associate Counsel