Citation Nr: A21018295 Decision Date: 11/16/21 Archive Date: 11/16/21 DOCKET NO. 200331-74883 DATE: November 16, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right knee medial meniscal tear, claimed as secondary to left patellofemoral pain syndrome, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left patellofemoral pain syndrome is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1981 to June 1984 and April 1987 to March 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in October 2019 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office under the modernized appeals system known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). In April 2020, the Veteran timely appealed such rating decision to the Board by submitting a Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (VA Form 10182) and requested direct review of the evidence considered by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Thus, the Board's review is limited to the evidence of record at the time of issuance of the rating decision on October 23, 2019. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for right knee medial meniscal tear, claimed as secondary to left patellofemoral pain syndrome. 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left patellofemoral pain syndrome. In October 2019, the Veteran was afforded VA examinations so as to evaluate the severity of her left knee disability and the etiology of her diagnosed right knee medial meniscal tear and bilateral plantar fasciitis. At such time, the examiner noted that a review of the Veteran's VA treatment records reflected records in VistA Imaging documented treatment for her plantar fasciitis and bilateral knee disorders from Rebound Orthopedics, and indicated that she also saw Dr. P. for follow-up of such conditions. However, the scanned records from Rebound Orthopedic have not been associated with the file and those from Dr. P. have not been obtained. Thus, a remand is necessary in order to remedy a pre-decisional duty to assist error by associating the scanned records with the file and attempting to obtain any additional outstanding private treatment records. The Board further observes that the October 2019 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral plantar fasciitis was less likely than not related to her military service as the record supported a finding that such disorder had its onset after service as a result of her post-service occupation and her service treatment records were silent for feet pain that would be supportive of plantar fasciitis or a diagnosis of such disorder. However, a review of the Veteran's service treatment records reveals complaints of foot/heel pain with an impression of tendonitis and retrocalcaneal bursitis of the left foot in April 1985. Furthermore, the examiner did not address whether such was due to overuse during service as a result of running and marching as argued in the Veteran's September 2019 claim. Thus, as the October 2019 VA examiner did not consider the totality of the record or address all theories of entitlement, a remand is necessary in order to remedy a pre-decisional duty to assist error by obtaining an addendum opinion that does so. Finally, the Board observes that, while the October 2019 VA examiner included a rationale for her opinion that the Veteran's right knee disorder was not proximately due to or the result of her service-connected left knee disability, she offered a conclusory opinion regarding whether her claimed disorder was aggravated by such service-connected disability. Specifically, she stated that there was no aggravation of the right knee disorder identified, but did not provide a basis for such determination. Thus, a remand is necessary in order to remedy a pre-decisional duty to assist error by obtaining an addendum opinion regarding whether the Veteran's right knee disorder is aggravated by her left knee disability that is accompanied by a rationale. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all records scanned into VistA Imaging pertaining to the Veteran's bilateral plantar fasciitis and bilateral knee disorders, to include those from Rebound Orthopedics. All efforts to obtain such records should be documented. 2. Afford the Veteran an opportunity to submit, or authorize VA to obtain, any outstanding private treatment records pertaining to her bilateral plantar fasciitis and bilateral knee disorder, to include those from Rebound Orthopedics and Dr. P. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained. Make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in her possession. 3. After completing the first two directives, forward the record, to include a copy of this Remand, to the October 2019 VA examiner who offered the opinions addressing the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral plantar fasciitis and right medical meniscal tear, or an appropriate substitute if she is unavailable, to obtain an addendum opinion. Following a review of the record, the examiner should address the below inquiries: (A) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's currently diagnosed bilateral plantar fasciitis had its onset in, or is otherwise related to, her military service, to include her documented complaints of foot/heel pain with an impression of tendonitis and retrocalcaneal bursitis of the left foot in April 1985 and/or overuse as a result of running and marching? (B) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's currently diagnosed right medial meniscal tear is aggravated by her service-connected left patellofemoral pain syndrome? For any aggravation found, the clinician should state, to the best of his or her ability, the baseline of symptomatology and the amount, quantified if possible, of aggravation beyond the baseline symptomatology. 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.