Citation Nr: 21000049 Decision Date: 01/04/21 Archive Date: 01/04/21 DOCKET NO. 13-25 740 DATE: January 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left foot condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1979 to February 1987. This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2010 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned in January 2016. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the claims file. In May 2016 and January 2020, the Board remanded the appeal to the RO for additional development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot condition is remanded. Once VA has provided a VA examination, it is required to provide an adequate one, regardless of whether it was legally obligated to provide an examination in the first place. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). A VA examiner must consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the incurrence of a disorder, and his statements regarding the continuity of symptomatology. Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40. A Veteran is competent to report symptoms that are capable of lay witness observation. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2017. The VA examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s left foot condition is related to service. He reasoned that there is no record of a foot condition in or shortly after service. Additionally, he noted, “service medical records evidence that veteran was medically qualified to complete the entire tour of active service.” However, he also noted the Veteran has a history of chronic gout and reported foot pain since 1987. Additionally, the examiner did not address the Veteran’s lay statements from his January 2016 hearing, where he reported his continuous left foot symptoms since he started wearing the boots provided during service, including a period of time where he was unable to walk shortly after separation and contentions that he had to miss work frequently due to his symptoms. Therefore, the February 2017 VA examination is inadequate. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all VA treatment records not currently associated with the claims file. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion to the February 2017 VA examination report for the Veteran’s left foot condition. The entire file should be made available to the examiner. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran’s service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. The examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s left foot condition: A) Had its onset in service, or B) Is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include running, jumping, and marching in his military provided boots. In rendering this opinion, the examiner must specifically address and consider the Veteran’s January 2016 hearing testimony, wherein he describes his symptoms during and since service, medical care history, and history of missing work due to his symptoms. The examiner is requested to provide a clear rationale and explain in detail the underlying reasoning for any opinions expressed. A discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. If an examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Papacalos, Law Clerk 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.