Citation Nr: 18150361 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-39 872 DATE: November 15, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, to include bilateral plantar fasciitis and heel spurs is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1988 June 1992 with the United States Marine Corps. The Board notes that the Veteran’s appeal originally included a claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. However, the Veteran’s August 2016 substantive appeal noted that the Veteran only wished to appeal the denial of entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis. Accordingly, only the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis was certified on appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board). In Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that the scope of a disability claim includes disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant’s description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record. Medical evidence of record contains diagnoses of bilateral plantar fasciitis and heel spurs. Thus, while the Veteran specified that he was seeking service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, the claim has been broadened to include other foot disabilities and is re-characterized accordingly. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, to include bilateral plantar fasciitis and heel spurs is remanded. The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, to include bilateral plantar fasciitis and heel spurs. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease. In order to prevail on the issue of service connection there must be competent evidence of a current disability; medical evidence, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and competent evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When a disease is first diagnosed after service, service connection is warranted for that condition if the competent evidence shows it was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In the April 2016 rating decision on appeal, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the Veteran’s claim because the record did not show that he had a bilateral foot disability. Subsequently, the Veteran submitted medical evidence of a current diagnosis of bilateral plantar fasciitis and heel spurs. In September 2017, the Veteran submitted VA treatment and private medical treatments records that noted a current diagnosis of bilateral plantar fasciitis and heel spurs. Further, the Veteran’s VA Form 9, Substantive Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, stated that the he first began experiencing bilateral foot pain during his period of active service, and that this foot pain has continued since his completion of active service. Review of the Veteran’s military personnel records establishes that the Veteran served as in infantryman in the United States Marine Corps, a military occupational specialty that could produce increased exertion on his feet. Finally, the probative medical evidence of record does not contain a medical opinion addressing a possible nexus between the Veteran’s current bilateral foot disabilities and his period of active service. Under McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), in initial service connection claims, the VA must provide a VA medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran’s service; and (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim. The threshold for determining whether the evidence “indicates” that there “may” be a nexus between a current disability and an in-service event, injury, or disease is a low one. Id., at 83. The Board finds that a VA foot conditions examination and medical opinion are required in order for the Board to comprehensively evaluate the Veteran’s claim for service connection. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician for his bilateral foot disability. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review, and the examiner must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether: a. It is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral plantar fasciitis began during active service or is related to an incident of service b. It is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s bilateral heel spurs began during active service or are related to an incident of service Although an independent review of the claims file is required, the Board calls the examiner’s attention to his lay assertions in his August 2016 VA Form 9, where he states that he had symptoms of a bilateral foot disability while on active duty and that his symptoms continued over the years. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. (Continued on the next page)   2. Readjudicate the claim. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Riordan, Associate Counsel