Citation Nr: 18152200 Decision Date: 11/21/18 Archive Date: 11/21/18 DOCKET NO. 16-37 073 DATE: November 21, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, claimed as due to blunt trauma, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, claimed as pseudofolliculitis barbae, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from October 1980 to January 1987. Before the claims can be adjudicated, a remand is required to obtain VA examinations and opinions. In McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims indicated that there was a four-part test to determine whether an examination was necessary under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). Id. at 81. Under this test, VA will provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion where 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 or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence to make a decision on the claim. Id.; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). For reasons stated below, the criteria for McLendon have been met with respect to each issue on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his degenerative joint disease of the hips was caused by the general wear and tear of active service. Specifically, the Veteran indicated that his hip pain began in service and he treated himself with over the counter medication until the pain worsened in 2009. His post-service treatment records reflect that he was diagnosed with bilateral degenerative joint disease in May 2009 and underwent a bilateral hip replacement that year. As the Veteran asserts that he has had ongoing bilateral hip pain since service discharge and there is evidence of a current chronic condition, an examination and opinion should be obtained regarding the etiology of his claimed bilateral hip disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his degenerative joint disease of the left shoulder was caused by constantly lifting patients as a medical service specialist in the Air Force. His service treatment records reflect complaints of shoulder pain in August 1985. Additionally, he was diagnosed with degenerative changes in the left shoulder in January 2006. An examination and opinion should be obtained to address the etiology of his claimed left shoulder disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. The Veteran attributes his current back disability to in-service wear and tear related to physical training. Post-service treatment records reflect complaints of back pain in October 2015 and radiology results from June 2016 indicate mild degenerative changes in the lumbar spine. An examination and opinion should be obtained to address the etiology of his claimed low back disability. 4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet is remanded. The Veteran’s June 1980 entrance examination notes that he had bilateral moderate pes planus at that time. His service treatment records reflect treatment in May 1986 for sore heels. An examination and opinion should be obtained to address whether the Veteran’s pes planus that was noted on entrance into service was aggravated beyond its normal progression during service. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, claimed as due to blunt trauma, is remanded. The Veteran claims that he has a bilateral eye disability related to in-service traumas. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records shows that in November 1984, he was diagnosed with left eye trauma while playing basketball. He was again treated for eye pain in July 1986. Thereafter, an August 1987 service treatment record showed he was assessed with a right eye scratch after his wife accidentally struck him in the eye. Post-service treatment records include a May 2014 VA treatment report showing that the Veteran was diagnosed with meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye. An examination and opinion should be obtained to address the etiology of his claimed bilateral eye disability. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, claimed as pseudofolliculitis barbae, is remanded. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records shows he was treated for pseudofolliculitis cystic acne in the beard area in May 1985. He was assessed with contact dermatitis on his forearms and neck in July 1986 after a deployment during which he was working around vegetation. Post-service treatment records reflect that he sought treatment for scalp bumps and tinea pedis in October 2015 for which he was prescribed topical ointments. An examination and opinion should be obtained to address the etiology of his claimed skin disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After obtaining any necessary releases, obtain any outstanding VA and private treatment records pertaining to the Veteran’s claims. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed bilateral hip disability. For each such disability diagnosed, the examiner must opine as to whether the disability is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements and contentions regarding ongoing hip pain since service discharge in the context of any negative opinion. 3. After completing directive (1), schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed left shoulder disability. For each such disability diagnosed, the examiner must opine as to whether the disability is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the August 1985 treatment for left shoulder pain. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements and contentions in the context of any negative opinion. 4. After completing directive (1), schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed low back disability. For each such disability diagnosed, the examiner must opine as to whether the disability is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements and contentions regarding ongoing back pain since service discharge in the context of any negative opinion. 5. After completing directive (1), schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of his diagnosed bilateral flat feet. The examiner should determine whether the pes planus that was noted on entrance into service was aggravated by his active duty service. Aggravation is defined as a permanent worsening beyond the natural progression of the disease or disability. The examiner should note the Veteran’s treatment for sore heels and a bruised foot pad in May 1986 and must consider the Veteran’s lay statements and contentions in the context of any negative opinion. 6. After completing directive (1), schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed bilateral eye disability. For each such disability diagnosed, the examiner must opine as to whether the disability is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including treatment for eye complaints in November 1984, July 1986, and August 1987. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements and contentions in the context of any negative opinion. 7. After completing directive (1), schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed skin condition, to include folliculitis barbae. For each such skin condition diagnosed, the examiner must opine as to whether the disability is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including treatment in May 1985 and July 1986 related to skin complaints. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements and contentions regarding ongoing skin complaints since service discharge in the context of any negative opinion. Lindsey M. Connor Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Dworkin, Associate Counsel