Citation Nr: 19182011 Decision Date: 10/29/19 Archive Date: 10/29/19 DOCKET NO. 16-54 438 DATE: October 29, 2019 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot hallux valgus is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left foot hallux valgus is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot metatarsalgia is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for left foot metatarsalgia is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable for right foot hammertoe is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable for left foot hammertoe is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from January 2001 to July 2002. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran expressed timely disagreement with those determinations, and the present appeal ensued. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot hallux valgus is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left foot hallux valgus is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot metatarsalgia is remanded. 4. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for left foot metatarsalgia is remanded. 5. Entitlement to an initial compensable for right foot hammertoe is remanded. 6. Entitlement to an initial compensable for left foot hammertoe is remanded. The Veteran was last afforded an examination for his service-connected bilateral foot disabilities in October 2014. He indicates that his disabilities have worsened since the 2014 VA examination and that the currently assigned evaluations are not reflective of the true severity of the conditions. See an August 2019 Appellate Brief. Given the fact that there are no relevant contemporaneous medical records documenting the current severity of his disabilities, the Board finds that remand is required to afford the Veteran a contemporaneous VA examination to assess the current nature, extent, and severity of his disabilities. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). 7. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. As the Veteran asserts that he is unemployable due to his foot disabilities, the Board finds that his claim for TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the issues above and must be remanded. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that where a claim is inextricably intertwined with another claim, the claims must be adjudicated together in order to enter a final decision on the matter). Any outstanding treatment records should be secured. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment records. 2. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, obtain any outstanding relevant private treatment records. 3. Then schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his bilateral foot disabilities. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner and all necessary tests should be performed, with all findings reported in detail. The examiner should conduct all indicated tests and studies, to include range of motion studies. The joints involved should be tested for pain (1) on active motion, (2) on passive motion, (3) in weight-bearing, and (4) in nonweight-bearing. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. In assessing functional loss, please also provide an opinion describing functional impairment of the Veteran’s bilateral hallux valgus, metatarsalgia, and hammertoe due to flare-ups, accounting for pain, incoordination, weakened movement, and excess fatigability on use, and, to the extent possible, report such impairment in terms of additional degrees of limitation of motion. If unable to provide such an opinion without resorting to speculation, please provide a rationale for this conclusion, with specific consideration of the instructions in the VA Clinician’s Guide to estimate, “per [the] veteran,” what extent, if any, flare-ups affect functional impairment. The examiner must include a discussion of any specific facts that cannot be determined if unable to opine without speculation. 4. Thereafter, the AOJ must readjudicate the Veteran's pending issues in light of any additional evidence added to the record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case. Scott W. Dale Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S.S. Mahoney The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.