Citation Nr: 21071540
Decision Date: 11/30/21	Archive Date: 11/30/21

DOCKET NO. 16-46 224
DATE: November 30, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1988 to April 1992. Most recently, the Board remanded the claim in July 2021 to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review.

Unfortunately, a remand is required again in this case. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure the Veteran is given every possible consideration.

1. Service connection for a left foot disorder is remanded.

The Board finds that the September 2021 VA medical opinion is inadequate as the examiner did not address the Veteran's lay contentions of lost mobility of his left great toe due to an April 1990 in-service bunionectomy. During his May 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran stated that after undergoing his left great toe bunionectomy during service, that he lost almost all mobility of his left great toe.  Service treatment records (STRs) associated with the claims file showed that the Veteran reported an inability to bend his left great toe after his April 1990 left great toe bunionectomy.  Therefore, the AOJ should obtain an addendum medical opinion.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain a VA addendum opinion pertaining to the etiology of the Veteran's left foot disorder from a qualified clinician.  Additional examination is not needed unless requested by the examiner.  The electronic claims folder must be available for review.  The examination report should indicate that the claims file was reviewed. The examiner should also address whether the current left foot disability condition manifested by lost mobility of his left great toe is the result of the usual effects of ameliorative surgery. In this regard, the examiner should indicate whether there are any residuals of the in-service left foot surgery, to include the reported lost mobility of his left great toe, that are unexpected. In other words, the examiner should address the question of whether the surgery did not have the desired effect or was not in its effect ameliorative.

(Continued on the next page)

 

Specifically, the examiner should address the Veteran's contention that he has had decreased range of motion of his left great toe since his in-service bunionectomy.  Also, the examiner must provide a complete rationale for all opinions expressed and conclusions reached.

 

 

S. L. Kennedy

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Costello, 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.