Citation Nr: 21067008 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 16-35 765 DATE: November 3, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a bilateral foot condition is remanded. Service connection for migraine headaches is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from March 1988 to August 1989. In April 2019, he testified before the undersigned at a videoconference hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript has been obtained and associated with the record In June 2020, the Veteran's appeal was denied by the Board which was then vacated by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). This appeal has now been returned to the Board for compliance with the June 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). Specifically, the JMR determined that the December 2019 VA foot opinion was inadequate as the VA examiner failed to consider and discuss several service treatment records reflecting complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a lower extremity disorder. Specifically, the JMR noted that in November 1989 the Veteran was diagnosed with "plantar fasciitis/heel spur" on his left foot and a mild ankle sprain; a November 1989 podiatry clinic note showing complains of sharp pain in his left ankle; and a July 1989 treatment note reflecting complaints of leg pain after a tree fell onto it. Therefore, a new examination was found to be warranted. Additionally, the JMR determined that the December VA headache examination was inadequate as the VA examiner failed to address the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset of his symptoms and offered an opinion inconsistent with her own notation. Specifically, the VA examiner noted an onset of migraines in the "early 90s" but concluded that the Veteran's headache condition was not related to service because the "complaints of problems with headaches occurred more than a decade after service." However, this determination is inconsistent with the facts as the Veteran separated from service in August 1989. As the VA examiner failed to adequately consider the Veteran's lay statement in determining the opinion and supporting rationale, a new opinion was found to be warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an etiological opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's bilateral foot condition had its onset during, manifested within one year of service discharge, or is otherwise related to his active military service. Why or why not? If a physical examination is necessary to answer the Board's question, one should be scheduled. If providing the requested opinion, the examiner should review the joint motion for remand (CAVC Decision received 7/19/21, p. 36-37) for an explanation as to why the previous VA examination was found to be inadequate. The VA examiner is also asked to consider and discuss the Veteran's lay statements regarding his symptomatology and the relevant treatment records including the November 1989 service treatment record reflecting that the Veteran was diagnosed with "plantar fasciitis/heel spur" on his left foot and a mild ankle sprain; a November 1989 podiatry clinic note showing complains of sharp pain in his left ankle; and a July 1989 treatment note reflecting complaints of leg pain after a tree fell onto it. 2. Obtain an etiological opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's migraine headache condition had its onset during, manifested within one year of service discharge, or is otherwise related to his active military service. Why or why not? If a physical examination is necessary to answer the Board's question, one should be scheduled. In providing the requested opinion, the examiner should review the joint motion for remand (CAVC Decision received 7/19/21, p. 37-38) for an explanation as to why the previous VA examination was found to be inadequate. The VA examiner is asked to consider and discuss the Veteran's statements regarding the onset of his symptomatology and the relevant treatment records. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Yoo, 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.