Citation Nr: 18153354 Decision Date: 11/27/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 16-30 569 DATE: November 27, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1968 to June 1975. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral plantar fasciitis. The Veteran claims that he incurred right and left knee disorders and bilateral plantar fasciitis during his military service. Specifically, he alleges that he injured his knees and feet in a motorcycle accident in April 1971; as a result of playing numerous sports, to include softball, basketball, and football; and/or as due to performing his military training/duties. In regard to his motorcycle accident, he reports that a sideview mirror punctured his right knee and, while the X-rays were noted to be negative, such were performed on the wrong knee. The Veteran further reports that, while he did not seek ongoing treatment during service, he nonetheless experienced a continuity of symptomatology, to include pain, in his knees and feet since service. The Veteran’s service treatment records reflect that, in May 1971, he reported a complaint of a sore leg. Upon physical examination, he was noted to have a puncture wound on the left knee with a 1/2” laceration. In this regard, the Veteran reported that he fell off a motorcycle in April 1971. Upon physical examination, his knees were normal, and X-rays were negative. Post-service treatment records reflect complaints of bilateral knee and foot pain, and a finding of mild arthritis of the bilateral knees on X-rays in November 2014. While right knee patellofemoral syndrome and right plantar fasciitis was diagnosed prior to the pendency of the claim in December 2001 and December 2002, respectively, the Veteran has reported ongoing bilateral knee and foot pain. In September 2013, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in order to ascertain the nature and etiology of his claimed left knee disorder. His claimed right knee disorder and bilateral plantar fasciitis were not addressed. At such time, the examiner noted that the Veteran reported the onset of his left knee symptoms in 1970 as a result of his military training/duties, and diagnosed left patellar tendonitis. However, he opined that, due to the absence of documented evidence of significant knee injury or recurrent symptomatology during military service, it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s left knee disorder is related to a condition, illness, or event during military service. However, it does not appear that the examiner considered the Veteran’s documented in-service motorcycle accident, or the fact that he participated in numerous sports, or his allegation of a continuity of left knee symptomatology since service. Consequently, such opinion is inadequate to decide the claim. Therefore, based on the Veteran’s reported injury to his bilateral knees and feet during service, to include as a result of a motorcycle accident, playing sports, and performing his military training/duties, his report of a continuity of relevant symptomatology, and his documented post-service complaints and diagnoses, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in order to afford him a VA examination so as to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral knee disorder and bilateral plantar fasciitis. The Board also finds that a remand is necessary in order to obtain outstanding records. In this regard, in a March 2015 statement, the Veteran’s representative indicated that he was in receipt of disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) for the disorders currently on appeal. Consequently, as such records may be relevant to the instant claims, a remand is necessary in order to obtain any determination pertinent to the Veteran’s claim for SSA benefits, as well as any medical records relied upon concerning that claim. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992) (where VA has actual notice of the existence of records held by SSA which appear relevant to a pending claim, VA has a duty to assist by requesting those records from SSA). Finally, while on remand, the Veteran should be given an opportunity to identify any records relevant to the claims on appeal that have not been obtained. Thereafter, all identified records should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given an opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claims on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in his possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Any determination pertinent to the Veteran’s claim for SSA benefits, as well as any medical records relied upon concerning that claim, should be obtained from the SSA and associated with the claims file. All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, please issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 3. Afford the Veteran an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral knee disorder and bilateral plantar fasciitis. The record, to include a complete copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner, and all indicated tests and studies should be accomplished: (A) Identify all current bilateral knee disorders and bilateral plantar fasciitis found to be present at any time proximate to the pendency of the claim (i.e., August 2014), even if such has resolved or is asymptomatic. In this regard, the examiner should specifically indicate whether the Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral plantar fasciitis that is separate and distinct from his service-connected radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities. (B) For each currently bilateral knee disorder and/or bilateral plantar fasciitis identified, offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that such is related to the Veteran’s military service, to include his in-service April 1971 motorcycle accident, as documented in a May 1971 service treatment records; as a result of playing numerous sports, to include softball, basketball, and football; and/or due to performing his military training/duties. (C) If arthritis of the left and/or right knee is found, indicate whether such manifested within one year of the Veteran’s separation from service in June 1975, i.e., by June 1976, and, if so, describe the manifestations. In offering such opinions, the examiner must consider the Veteran’s allegation that the May 1971 service treatment record erroneously referenced the left knee when it was his right knee that was injured. He or she should also consider the Veteran’s reports regarding the onset and continuity of bilateral knee and foot symptomatology since service. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert Almosd, Associate Counsel