Citation Nr: 21063878 Decision Date: 10/18/21 Archive Date: 10/18/21 DOCKET NO. 16-38 205 DATE: October 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hip acetabular femoral abutment syndrome, to include as secondary to bilateral tibiotalar osteoarthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral knee degenerative joint disease, to include as secondary to bilateral tibiotalar osteoarthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral fallen arches, to include as secondary to bilateral tibiotalar osteoarthritis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from April 1988 to October 1993. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision. In March 2020, a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the record. A June 2020 Board decision denied these matters. An August 2020 rating decision granted service connection for a bilateral ankle disability. A June 2021 United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) joint motion for partial remand (JMPR) vacated and remanded the portion of the June 2020 Board decision which denied service connection for (1) a bilateral hip disability, (2) bilateral knee disability, and (3) bilateral fallen arches. 1. 2. 3. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hip acetabular femoral abutment syndrome, service connection for bilateral knee degenerative joint disease, and service connection for bilateral fallen arches, each to include as secondary to bilateral tibiotalar osteoarthritis At the March 2020 Travel Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he received treatment at the Albuquerque, New Mexico VA Center, and at Temple VA Healthcare. The record currently contains treatment records form VAMC Amarillo, which have not been updated since January 2017. Notably, VA treatment records are constructively of the record. Accordingly, where (as here) it indicates that the Veteran receives ongoing treatment, and records of the treatment are likely to contain pertinent information, the VA treatment records must be obtained. The Veteran has reported ongoing foot pain. Whether the Veteran's current complaints of foot pain are related to complaints of foot pain in service is a medical question, which requires a medical opinion. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). Lastly, whether these disabilities are related to the Veteran's now service-connected bilateral ankle disability is a medical question. Accordingly, a medical opinion which considers whether these claims were caused or aggravated by the Veteran's now service-connected bilateral ankle disability is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all providers of evaluations and treatment he has received for his (1) bilateral hip, (2) bilateral knee, and (3) bilateral foot disabilities, and to submit authorizations for VA to secure records of such evaluations and treatment from the private providers identified. The AOJ should also secure complete VA clinical records (any not already associated with the record) of the evaluations and treatment from all providers identified, to include up to date (since December 2016) records of VA treatment from VA facilities in Temple and Albuquerque. 2. Arrange for an orthopedic evaluation of the Veteran to obtain a medical advisory opinion regarding the likely etiology of his (1) bilateral hip, (2) bilateral knee, and (3) bilateral foot disabilities. On review of the record and interview/examination of the Veteran the consulting provider should respond to the following: (a.) Identify (by diagnosis) each (1) bilateral hip, (2) bilateral knee, and (3) bilateral foot disabilities found (or shown by the record during the pendency of the instant claim). (b.) Identify the likely etiology for each (1) bilateral hip, (2) bilateral knee, and (3) bilateral foot disabilities diagnosed. Specifically, is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that such is related to the Veteran's service? (c.) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that such was caused or aggravated by the Veteran's now service-connected bilateral ankle disability? (d.) If it is determined that the Veteran's (1) bilateral hip, (2) bilateral knee, and (3) bilateral foot disabilities were not caused by service and were not caused or aggravated by his service-connected bilateral ankle disability, identify the etiology considered more likely and explain why that is so. The clinician must provide a complete rationale for all findings and opinions, and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Staskowski, 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.