Citation Nr: 21000848 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 14-09 212A DATE: January 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to June 20, 2012 for bilateral pes planus is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent beginning June 20, 2012 for bilateral pes planus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1953 to June 1955. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded the matters for further development in February 2019; specifically, the matters were remanded for a new examination to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s bilateral pes planus. The Veteran was scheduled for a new VA examination in July 2019. The Veteran declined the examination. While the Veteran declined the previously scheduled examination, and failed to provide good cause for his absence, the Veteran’s representative requested an additional opportunity for a new examination be afforded to the Veteran. See Appellant’s Brief. Therefore, the Board, to afford the Veteran fair opportunity to substantiate his claim, determined that a new VA examination should be scheduled and remanded the matters in April 2020. The Veteran was scheduled for a new VA examination. The July 2020 Exam Scheduling Request Clarification Response showed the Veteran no longer wanted to pursue the claim. In September 2020, VA attempted to contact the Veteran by phone to determine if the Veteran wished to withdraw his claim, but the Veteran did not answer. VA intended to contact the Veteran a second time, but the record does not show any additional attempts to contact the Veteran. The Board notes there is no written or electronic communication of record from either the Veteran or accredited representative indicating that the Veteran actually withdrew the issue. A written withdrawal is required. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. In the December 2020 Appellant Briefs, the Veteran’s representative requested the Board remand the claims and provide the Veteran another opportunity to present himself for a VA examination. The representative raised the argument that the current pandemic may have caused the Veteran to refuse the examination. While the Veteran declined the previously scheduled examination, and failed to provide good cause for his absence, the Veteran’s representative requested an additional opportunity for a new examination be afforded to the Veteran. The Board finds the current circumstances due to the pandemic could have caused the Veteran to decline the examination; and VA was unable to determine if the Veteran wanted to withdraw his appeal. Therefore, the Board, to afford the Veteran fair opportunity to substantiate his claims, has determined that a new VA examination should be scheduled. The Veteran is reminded that he is expected to attend the scheduled examination or give proper notice in the event of cancellation. VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining information, and the Veteran has a duty on his part to cooperate with VA in developing a claim. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). If the Veteran fails to attend his rescheduled examination, his claim will be decided based on the evidence of record. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request authorization to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the claim, including any private treatment records following proper VA procedures (38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)). 2. Afford the Veteran a VA foot examination, with a qualified medical professional to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of the bilateral pes planus. The claims file must be reviewed by the examiner. The most up-to-date Disability Benefits Questionnaire must be employed, and all opinions and conclusions must be supported by a rationale. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. N. Quarles, Associate 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.