Citation Nr: 20035239 Decision Date: 05/20/20 Archive Date: 05/20/20 DOCKET NO. 11-31 110 DATE: May 20, 2020 ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability, to include as secondary to a service-connected disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for pes planus, to include as secondary to a service-connected disability. 3. Entitlement to disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral plantar fasciitis prior to October 15, 2019, and in excess of 50 percent thereafter. 4. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for patellofemoral syndrome, right knee, with chondromalacia and subluxating patella. 5. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee arthritis. 6. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for patellofemoral syndrome, left knee, with chondromalacia and subluxating patella. 7. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee arthritis. 8. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for regular aid and attendance or housebound. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability, to include as secondary to a service-connected disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for pes planus, to include as secondary to a service-connected disability, is remanded. Entitlement to disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral plantar fasciitis prior to October 15, 2019, and in excess of 50 percent thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for patellofemoral syndrome, right knee, with chondromalacia and subluxating patella is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for patellofemoral syndrome, left knee, with chondromalacia and subluxating patella is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance or housebound is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1988 to January 1990. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals(Board) on appeal from a February 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing in July 2016. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record. Historically in November 2016, the Board denied the claim for an increased rating for bilateral plantar fasciitis and the applications to reopen prior claims for service connection for depression, a bilateral ankle disability, pes planus, and bilateral foot bone spurs. The Board also remanded the remaining matters listed above. The Veteran then appealed the November 2016 Board denials. In October 2017, based on a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) issued an Order vacating the Board’s November 2016 determinations as to claim for an increased rating for bilateral plantar fasciitis and the applications to reopen prior claims for service connection for depression, a bilateral ankle disability, pes planus, and bilateral foot bone spurs, and remanded the matters to the Board for further development and readjudication. In a March 2020 rating decision, the evaluation of bilateral plantar fasciitis was increased to 50 percent effective October 15, 2019. This did not satisfy the Veteran’s appeal. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). When this case was most recently before the Board in May 2020, it was remanded for additional evidentiary development. The Board notes that none of the May 2020 remand directives were accomplished. As such, on remand the Board directs the RO to the May 2020 remand and again remands this case with instructions as outlined below. The Board notes again that entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity neuropathy, to include as secondary to the service-connected knee disabilities, was reasonably raised by the Veteran in her November 2016 statements in her November 2016 VA spine examination. This matter has not been addressed by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), the Board does not have jurisdiction over it, and it is again referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran with notice pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e) with regard to any unavailable records. 2. Provide access to the electronic claims file to the October 2019 examiner, or an appropriate examiner if this individual is not available, to provide addendum opinions regarding the claimed pes planus. The electronic claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. An examination should be performed if deemed necessary by the examiner providing the requested opinion. The examiner should address: a) Whether the Veteran has a diagnosis of pes planus that is a completely separate and distinct disability from the service-connected foot disability. If a separate disability is not found, the examiner must address VA treatment records that show diagnoses of pes planus. b) If so, whether it is at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any such pes planus had onset in oris otherwise etiologically related to service. c) If so, whether it is at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that any such pes planus was caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination by an examiner with appropriate expertise to determine the current degree of severity of her service-connected right and left knee disabilities. The electronic claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. All testing deemed necessary must be conducted and results reported in detail. The examiner should: Conduct all indicated tests and studies, to include range of motion studies expressed in degrees and in relation to normal range of motion, and should describe any pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and incoordination present. To the extent possible, express any functional loss in terms of additional degrees of limited motion of the Veteran’s disabilities, i.e., the extent of the Veteran’s pain-free motion. Pursuant to Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), please record the results of range of motion testing for pain on both active and passive motion and in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing. If a joint cannot be tested on “weight-bearing,” please specifically indicate why that testing cannot be done. Pursuant to Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), the examiner is instructed to inquire whether there are periods of flare-ups. If the answer is “yes,” the examiner should state their severity, frequency, and duration explaining if there are any additional or increased symptoms and limitations experienced during flares. The examiner must ALSO name the precipitating and alleviating factors. The examiner must ALSO estimate, “per [the] veteran,” to what extent, if any, they affect functional impairment. A full and complete rationale for any opinions expressed is required. 4. After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the claims on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and her representative with an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and afford a reasonable opportunity for response. MICHAEL A. PAPPAS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R.M.K., Counsel 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.