Citation Nr: 21068132 Decision Date: 11/09/21 Archive Date: 11/09/21 DOCKET NO. 14-14 817 DATE: November 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 8, 1977, to November 7, 1977. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in January 2012 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In December 2017, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. In March 2018, the Board reopened and remanded the issue on appeal for additional development and, in January 2020, denied service connection for a left foot disorder. Thereafter, the Veteran appealed such decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) and, in an April 2021 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated and remanded the Board's January 2020 decision. The case now returns for further appellate consideration. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder. In the January 2020 decision, the Board denied service connection for a left foot disorder based on finding that such disorder, separate and distinct from a pre-existing hypertrophic scar formation, was not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, injury, or incident during service. In reaching such determination, the Board relied upon an April 2019 VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran's left foot disorder, diagnosed as arthritis, was less likely than not directly related to service, to include his documented in-service complaints of left foot pain and/or his claimed injury from falling into a hole during physical training. In support thereof, he noted that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) documented only one foot complaint having to do with a cut during service, which had nothing to do with the type of injury that would lead to arthritis. In addition, the VA examiner found there are no other records that support any type of fall or injury, and found it significant that the Veteran's current complaints on examination had more to do with his ankle and not his foot, which does not support continuity of injury and/or care. However, in the April 2021 Memorandum Decision, the Court found that the Board failed to adequately explain its reliance on the April 2019 VA examiner's opinion as he did not discuss favorable evidence, to include September 17, 1977, STRs reflecting complaints of pain and swelling of the left foot separate and distinct from his scar. Specifically, as noted by the Court, a September 17, 1977, STR acknowledged that the Veteran had an old scar from a preexisting laceration, but also noted that he was experiencing "pain/edema," and a separate STR from the same date reflected a notation of "old surgical scar noted, no infect[ion]" and "mild edema to dorsum of foot," while his scar was near the ankle joint. Thus, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in order to obtain an addendum opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran's left foot disorder that considers such STRs. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Forward the record, to include a copy of this Remand, to an appropriate VA examiner to obtain an addendum opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran's left foot disorder, separate and distinct from a pre-existing hypertrophic scar formation. Following a full review of the record, the examiner should offer an opinion as whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's left foot disorder, separate and distinct from a pre-existing hypertrophic scar formation, which is currently diagnosed as arthritis, had its onset in, or is otherwise related to his military service, to include his documented in-service complaints of left foot pain and/or his claimed injury from his foot falling into a hold during physical training. In offering such opinion, the examiner should consider and discuss (1) a September 17, 1977, STR acknowledging that the Veteran had an old scar from a preexisting laceration, but also noted that he was experiencing "pain/edema," (2) a separate STR from the same date reflected a notation of "old surgical scar noted, no infect[ion]" and "mild edema to dorsum of foot," while his scar was near the ankle joint, and (3) the lay statements of record regarding the onset of such left foot disorder and the continuity of symptomatology of such disorder. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Breckenridge 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.