Citation Nr: 20027872 Decision Date: 04/21/20 Archive Date: 04/21/20 DOCKET NO. 14-16 194 DATE: April 21, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for service connection for bilateral foot disability other than bilateral pes planus and bilateral hallux valgus with osteophyte 1st metatarsophalangeal joint, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1982 through May 1986 and from August 1990 through October 2006. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was remanded in February 2018 for further development; it has since been re-assigned to the undersigned. The Veteran contends that physical training exercises, road marches and varying types of footwear, particularly the boots he wore, caused bilateral foot pain intermittently in service. AT the outset, the Board notes that service connection is in effect for bilateral pes planus, and bilateral hallux valgus with osteophyte 1st metatarsophalangeal joint. Records show the Veteran also has been diagnosed with metatarsalgia, plantar fasciitis and arthritis of the foot. As such, and under the holding in Clemmons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the Board has re-characterized to include the bilateral feet diagnoses of record for which service connection is not in effect. 1. Entitlement to service connection for Morton's disease, to include bilateral metatarsalgia and degenerative arthritis of the foot is remanded. As there are additional diagnoses related to the Veteran’s feet that are not service connected for, the issue of service connection for a bilateral foot disability other than pes planus and hallux valgus, is still pending before the Board. Further development is required for the following reasons. A VA examination is required to clarify the nature and etiology of all foot disorders. At the outset, the Board notes that post service treatment records note diagnoses of plantar fasciitis. The record also contains a diagnosis of bilateral metatarsalgia. See April 2012 VA examination. Further, the Veteran has a diagnosis of degenerative arthritis of the right foot. See September 2019 VA examination. While an etiology opinion regarding the right foot arthritis was provided in September 2019, the same was based on an absence of a diagnosis in service and it is therefore inadequate. The Board finds that another VA examination is necessary to determine whether the Veteran his diagnosed bilateral metatarsalgia and degenerative arthritis of the right foot are related to service or a service-connected disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4)(i); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to assess the nature and etiology of all diagnosed feet disabilities. For each disability identified, to include bilateral metatarsalgia, plantar fasciitis and degenerative arthritis of the right foot, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether the disability at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) had its onset during service or was caused by an incident in service or is caused or aggravated by (beyond the natural progression of the disease) a service-connected disability. The claim folder, including this remand, must be sent to the examiner for review; and consideration of such should be reflected in the completed examination report. The examiner should describe all findings in detail. Explanatory rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. If the requested opinion(s) cannot be made without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner must state this and specifically explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to mere speculation. If the examiner concludes that a diagnosed foot disability is not present despite the medical evidence of record demonstrating the various diagnoses of foot disabilities since or contemporaneous to the filing of this claim, he/she is asked to provide an explanation for this conclusion, including a discussion of all the diagnoses made during the period of this appeal and the Veteran's statements. 2. If upon completion of the above action the issues remain denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christina Pollonais 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.