Citation Nr: 21062612 Decision Date: 10/08/21 Archive Date: 10/08/21 DOCKET NO. 19-06 085A DATE: October 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for cold weather residuals of the feet is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1998 to June 2001 and from August 2002 to July 2003 with additional service in the Army National Guard of Texas. This appeal arises from a November 2017 rating decision by the VA Regional Office (RO), which found no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim of service connection for cold weather injury to both feet. The appeal was previously before the Board in September 2019 and December 2020. In a September 2019 decision, the Board reopened and denied the claim of service connection for cold weather residuals of the feet. The Veteran appealed the Board's September 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 Order, the Court granted the parties' August 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) to vacate the September 2019 Board decision, as to the denial of service connection for cold weather residuals of the feet, and to remand the issue for further development. The appeal returned to the Board, and in December 2020, the Board remanded the appeal for further development in accordance with the August 2020 JMPR. The appeal is now again before the Board. Entitlement to service connection for cold weather residuals of the feet is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has a bilateral foot condition as a result of cold weather exposure in the military. This matter has been remanded several times to resolve whether the Veteran has a current cold weather residual and, if so, whether such condition is related to claimed cold weather exposure. The Veteran's service treatment records include a November 14, 2000, cold weather injury worksheet showing a provisional diagnosis of chilblains of the toes and feet. The Board notes that chilblain is a recurrent localized erythema and doughy subcutaneous swelling caused by exposure to cold associated with dampness and accompanied by pruritus and a burning sensation. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 343 (32nd ed. 2012). Additionally, the STRs include a May 2001 examination noting the Veteran's report of chilblains to both feet about a year ago with "no problem now." Additionally, a private March 2017 record merely indicates history and examination that "may" suggest mild degree of sensory peripheral neuropathy that "could" be related to frostbite years ago. VA examinations obtained throughout the appellate time frame do not confirm a cold weather residual of the feet related to service. Indeed, the Veteran was last examined in August 2021 where the examiner found "no pathology or diagnosis to render an opinion." The Veteran's representative, however, takes issue with the examination merely because the examiner did not specifically address the March 2017 private physician's note of history that "may" suggest mild degree of sensory peripheral neuropathy that "could" be related to frostbite years ago. The Board does not find the August 2021 VA examination inadequate on those grounds, but finds clarification is warranted. The same examiner, in a separate report for peripheral nerve conditions, indicated that the Veteran has peripheral neuropathy in both feet that began in January 2000. It is unclear how the reports are reconciled with one another and whether the Veteran ever had a cold weather residual at any time during the pendency of this appeal. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 319, 321 (2007) (the current disability requirement for service connection is satisfied if a "claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim."). The Board notes that the Veteran's representative also argues that the August 2021 examination did not include an in-person examination, but contrary to that argument the report indicates that physical examination was performed. Nevertheless, as there is some confusion as to whether the Veteran has or had a neurological condition of the bilateral feet during the pendency of this appeal, the Board finds a remand is warranted to obtain a clarification opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any additional VA treatment records, to include VA treatment records from March 2021 to the present. 2. After outstanding records are obtained to the extent possible, ask the appropriate examiner (for cold injury and/or peripheral nerves) to review the Veteran's file. The necessity of an in-person examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner should opine and otherwise reconcile the evidence in the record whether the Veteran has or had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a diagnosis related to cold injury of the feet, to include consideration of peripheral neuropathy noted in the record, and if so, whether it is at least as likely as not that any such diagnosis: (a) had an onset in service or (b) is otherwise related to service, to include consideration of Veteran's contentions that his feet started hurting during his active service while performing an outdoor field exercise, that his feet have continued to hurt since service, and that he has current nerve damage that is related to chilblains of the toes and feet noted in the November 2000 STR. The examiner should consider all medical and lay evidence of record, to include in-service treatment for chilblains of the toes and feet, and the March 2017 private neurology record by Dr. L.W. stating that the Veteran may have peripheral neuropathy in the feet that could be related to in-service frostbite. The examiner should provide complete rationale for any conclusions made. If the Veteran and/or his representative's arguments are discounted, the examiner should provide a rationale for doing so (e.g., whether there is any medical reason to accept or reject the contentions). 3. After the above development and any other development deemed necessary is completed, readjudicate the claim. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Santiago, 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.