Citation Nr: 21068546 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-11 332 DATE: November 10, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for a foot condition, to include bilateral hallux valgus with high plantar arches, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1973 to August 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a travel Board hearing. A transcript is of record. Service connection for a foot condition, to include bilateral hallux valgus with high plantar arches, is remanded. The Veteran seeks service connection for a foot condition, to include bilateral hallux valgus with high plantar arches. The record also reflects diagnoses of bilateral midfoot osteoarthritis and bilateral pes planus. The Board previously remanded this matter in February 2020 and June 2021 for further development. In compliance with the Board's June 2021 remand directives, an addendum opinion was obtained in September 2021. The examiner opined that the Veteran's current foot disabilities were less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner explained that while the Veteran was seen for tinea pedis (athlete's foot), blisters, and calluses during service, there was no evidence of pes planus or hallux valgus therein. The examiner also explained that the Veteran's separation examination report, which was notably thorough, indicates no current foot conditions were identified. The examiner further noted that no foot conditions were identified until 2014 or 2015, including hallux valgus in March 2015. Thus, the examiner opined that it is more likely than not that the Veteran's conditions arose after service, in or around 2014 or 2015. However, the Board notes a November 2004 VA examination report does reflect a diagnosis of mild hallux valgus deformity of the bilateral great toes. The associated x-ray report noted evidence of hallux valgus, high plantar arches, and generalized osteopenia. As the September 2021 opinion appears to have relied, at least in part, on an inaccurate factual premise, an addendum opinion is necessary. Finally, the Veteran has asserted that the wearing of combat boots may have contributed to his high arches. See, e.g., November 2019 Board hearing transcript at 14-16. This specific contention was not addressed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's currently diagnosed foot conditions are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including his in-service complaints of bilateral foot pain, calluses, and tinea pedis. The examiner is advised that a diagnosis of mild hallux valgus deformity of the bilateral great toes and X-ray evidence of high plantar arches was noted in 2004, not in 2014. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for the opinion provided. In doing so, the examiner should consider the Veteran's contentions and description of his in-service and post-service symptoms. The Veteran testified that he would have to shave blisters off the sides of his feet during service. He and his representative contend that the wearing of combat boots may have contributed to his high arches and later development of bunions. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported symptoms (having to shave blisters off the sides of his feet during service) and wearing of combat boots may have contributed to his high arches and the later development of bunions, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about his symptoms align with how any of the currently diagnosed foot disabilities are known to develop or are the Veteran's contentions generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.Aoughsten, Associate 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.