Citation Nr: 21071690 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 14-26 934 DATE: December 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, to include bilateral foot fractures, shin splints, stress reaction of the calcaneus and tibia, pes cavus, and plantar pad atrophy, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served as a member of the Oregon Army National Guard from January 1987 to May 1987, to include a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from March 1987 to May 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2013 rating decision and May 2014 administrative decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The issue was previously before the Board in April 2018 and November 2020 but was remanded for additional development. Unfortunately, the Board finds that the evidence of record does not substantially comply with its prior remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (Board remand confers a right on a claimant to compliance with the remand order); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 147 (1999) (clarifying that substantial compliance with Board remand is required). The Board remanded the above issue in November 2020 to obtain a new VA examination for the Veteran's bilateral foot disability. Specifically, the Board sought a clarification of an April 2020 VA examination, in which the examiner said the Veteran's shin splints had resolved but did not explain whether the Veteran had been diagnosed with shin splints at any time during the period on appeal. Additionally, the Board sought secondary service connection opinions as to whether any of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including metatarsalgia, was the proximate cause of his bilateral foot disability or aggravated his bilateral foot disability. The RO organized a new VA examination for the Veteran but, in a June 2021 contact, the Veteran stated he did not wish to report for the examination. The Board notes that although VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating his claims, that duty is not a one-way street and it is important that the Veteran makes efforts to assist VA in gathering evidence relevant to his claim. Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214, 224 (2000); see also Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449, 452 (2000). Per 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (a), when entitlement to a benefit cannot be established without a current VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination or reexamination, action shall be taken in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b) or (c) as appropriate. When a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b). However, the opinions sought in the November 2020 Board remand can be answered by an examiner through record review and without the presence of the Veteran. As such, the Board finds that a remand for a medical opinion of the Veteran's bilateral foot disability is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum medical opinion for the Veteran's feet and lower extremity. The examiner should review all relevant records, including this remand. After reviewing the record, the examiner should identify any disabilities of the feet and lower extremity, including shin splints and with the exception of metatarsalgia, that are present. In so doing, the examiner is instructed that all disabilities during the period on appeal should be considered even if they have since resolved. Then, with respect to each such disability, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the disability had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, the Veteran's period of active service. If it is the examiner's opinion that it is less likely than not that an identified disability had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, service, the examiner should offer a further opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that such disability has been 1) caused or 2) aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, to include metatarsalgia. (Continued on the next page) All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained, and a complete and detailed rationale for any conclusions reached should be provided (a bare conclusory statement will be deemed inadequate). It is not sufficient to base an opinion on a mere lack of documentation of complaints in the service or post-service treatment records. If the clinician is unable to provide an opinion on these matters, the clinician must state whether the inability to render an opinion is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the clinician (does not have the knowledge or training). K.A. KENNERLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Lee Feldman, 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.