Citation Nr: 21062833 Decision Date: 10/12/21 Archive Date: 10/12/21 DOCKET NO. 14-24 074 DATE: October 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to increases in the staged (10 percent prior to March 31, 2015, and 50 percent from that date) ratings for bilateral flat feet, with plantar fasciitis and calcaneal tuberosities, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from January 1997 to January 1999 and from November 2004 to December 2004. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2007 rating decision that continued a 10 percent rating for bilateral flat feet. In August 2016, a videoconference hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the record. In January 2018 the case was remanded for further development. An interim (July 2019) rating decision increased the rating for bilateral flat feet to 50 percent, effective March 31, 2015. An October 2019 Board decision denied entitlement to increases in the staged ratings assigned for bilateral flat feet with plantar fasciitis and calcaneal tuberosities. The Veteran appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), resulting in a July 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). A July 2020 CAVC Order remanded the matter for action consistent with the terms of the JMR. In March 2021, the case was remanded for additional development. Entitlement to increases in the staged ratings for bilateral flat feet, with plantar fasciitis and calcaneal tuberosities In March 2021, the Board remanded this matter for a contemporaneous examination to assess the current nature and severity of his service-connected disabilities of the feet, including under the new (revised) criteria for rating the feet (effective February 7, 2021). The Board directed development (pursuant to the JMR) to identify (to the extent possible) the symptoms associated with each disability, and to identify the nature of the relief provided by treatment for each disability. In June 2021, a VA (fee basis) foot conditions examination was conducted; that examination report is responsive to the Board's remand directives, and appears adequate for rating purposes. Remand is required, however, because (prior to return of his appeal to the Board) the Veteran identified outstanding, pertinent, private treatment records that have not been associated with the record. In April 2021 (in response to a March 2021 VA development letter), the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-4142a that identifies multiple private providers with dates of treatment from 2004 to "current 2021," including Dr. T for "foot ankle" and Dr. S.A., a podiatrist. The submission also includes the first page of a VA Form 41-4142; it is unclear whether the Veteran did not submit the second (signature) page, or whether there was a scanning error. A May 2021 memorandum from the VA Private Medical Records Retrieval Center notes the request was rejected due to "Incomplete Request Missing 4142." There is no indication the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) sought the identified records. Furthermore, there is no indication that the Veteran was notified of a deficiency in his submission (by a letter to the Veteran, or by a Report of Contact documenting a phone call to the Veteran) so as to allow him to correct the deficiency (with an executed/signed authorization) enabling VA to obtain the identified records. Therefore, remand to allow the Veteran to submit complete, fully executed VA Forms 21-4142 and -4142a to allow the AOJ to obtain all outstanding, identified records of private treatment is required. The matter is REMANDED for the following: 1. Ask the Veteran to provide the identifying information and releases, including specifically both VA Forms 21-4142 and 4142a (fully executed), necessary for VA to secure for the record complete outstanding clinical records from all such providers identified, specifically including records from Drs. A.S., L.E., and D.T. Secure for the record complete records from all providers/sources identified. If any records requested are unavailable, the reason must be explained in the record. If a private provider does not respond to a VA request for records, the Veteran must be so advised, and also advised that ultimately it is his responsibility to ensure that private records are received. 2. If, and only if, new treatment records are associated with the record pursuant to the development requested above, return the entire record to the June 2021 consulting clinician for review and an addendum medical opinion regarding the nature and symptomatology of the Veteran's bilateral pes planus, plantar fasciitis, and calcaneal tuberosities, each. [If the June 2021 provider is unavailable (or unable) to provide the addendum opinion sought, arrange for another appropriate clinician to review the record and provide the opinion sought (if in such circumstances a further examination of the Veteran is deemed necessary, such should be arranged).] Upon review of any newly associated treatment records, the consulting provider should: (a) Identify all symptoms and impairment associated with each of the Veteran's diagnosed right and left foot disabilities, including specifically pes planus, plantar fasciitis, and calcaneal tuberosities. To the extent possible, distinguish the symptoms and impairment attributable to each. If it is not possible to separate or distinguish the symptoms attributable to such disabilities, identify such symptoms and explain why that is so. If a symptom is considered a manifestation of multiple diagnosed entities, identify the disability among them that is predominant. (b) Regarding bilateral plantar fasciitis, indicate whether the treatment for such disability provides no relief, partial relief, or full relief of the attributable symptoms and impairment. (c) Regarding bilateral calcaneal tuberosities, indicate whether there are any attributable symptoms that are not included in the criteria for rating plantar fasciitis (under Code 5269) OR pes planus (under Code 5276), and opine whether such symptoms manifest in a mild, moderate, moderately severe, or severe foot injury. Include rationale with all opinions, citing to supporting factual data and medical principles, as deemed appropriate. GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Dupont, 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.