Citation Nr: 20046526 Decision Date: 07/13/20 Archive Date: 07/13/20 DOCKET NO. 12-12 556 DATE: July 13, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hallux valgus, to include as due to in-service cold-weather related injuries is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1952 to May 1954, including service in Korea. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in North Little Rock, Arkansas. In February 2013, the Veteran provided testimony at a Board hearing held at the RO before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Veteran died in September 2017. In January 2018, the RO informed the appellant that she was eligible as a valid substitute in place of the Veteran for the issues on appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot and leg disorder to include hallux valgus and cold weather-related injuries is remanded. Remand is required in order to obtain an adequate VA addendum opinion. Where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The Board is also obligated by law to ensure that the RO complies with its directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). RO compliance with remand directives is not optional or discretionary and the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure remand compliance. Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. In May 2014 the issues were remanded in order to obtain VA examinations and opinions for the Veteran’s bilateral leg and foot conditions. In the October 2016 Board remand, the issues were remanded again for failure to comply with the May 2014 Board remand instructions. The examiner in the June 2015 VA examination failed to discuss the Veteran’s lay contentions regarding his sprained ankle or chronic toe pain as requested in the Board decision. On remand, a June 2017 VA examination was conducted. The examination is inadequate as the examiner denied nexus because the Veteran did not have chronic treatment for his sprained ankles or frostbite while in service. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs), however, are presumed missing or destroyed. The Veteran’s complete military service treatment and personnel records were requested by the Board. In December 2010, the National Personnel Records Center confirmed that a fire had destroyed military records from 1912 to 1959. Photocopies of the Veteran’s few remaining documents were associated with the Veteran’s file. In 2011 the Board requested the Veteran’s service treatment records from Fort Jackson, where the Veteran stated he stayed in hospital for 12 days recovering from a fall in basic training. The Board received a response in June 2011 that records for a period prior to 1960 are presumed to have been destroyed in a fire. Therefore, the denial of nexus cannot be predicated upon the lack of treatment in service as the Veteran’s service treatment records are largely unavailable. Second, the examination is inadequate as the examiner failed to fully comply with the remand directives from the October 2016 Board remand. The examiner did not address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the in-service origins of his lower extremity conditions. The examiner did not consider the bilateral leg and foot injuries that the Veteran experienced after marching for 14 miles during basic training at Fort Jackson. The examiner also did not address the Veteran’s lay contentions regarding toe pain in the April 2011 medical treatment records or the Veteran’s statements regarding his toe pain relating back to his injury at Fort Jackson during basic training. And finally, the examiner noted that the Veteran had onychomycosis according to treatment records but failed to address the etiology as ordered by the previous Board remand. As such, remand is required in order to obtain an adequate VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum medical opinion to determine the etiology of each diagnosed bilateral leg or foot disorder. The claims folder, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. Regarding peripheral neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, osteoarthritis, onychomycosis, and hallux valgus, provide an opinion, in light of the examination findings and the service and post-service evidence of record, as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that each diagnosed disorder had onset in, or is otherwise caused by, the Veteran’s military service, to include the August 1952 injury sustained while marching at Fort Jackson, the 1983 sprained ankles sustained while on a stopover in Japan en route to Korea, and any cold weather exposure experienced by the Veteran in Japan or Korea. The examiner must address the following: the Veteran’s contentions regarding injuries to both feet and legs during basic training at Fort Jackson in August 1952, his contention regarding sprained ankles incurred in Japan in January 1953, the Veteran’s contentions that he experienced cold weather exposure in Japan and Korea, and the VAMC treatment records recording the report of chronic toe pain in April 2011 and a statement relating this toe pain to the August 1952 basic training injury at Fort Jackson in November 2012. The examiner must presume, for purposes of providing this opinion, that the Veteran’s lay statements regarding these in-service injuries are true. The examiner should be advised that most of the Veteran’s service treatment records are not available, as they were destroyed. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Ashley Ki 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.