Citation Nr: 21072368 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 16-41 870 DATE: December 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for right foot degenerative joint disease (DJD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left foot DJD is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1972 to November 1974. Most recently, the Board remanded the claim in March 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. Service connection for bilateral foot DJD is remanded. The Veteran contends that he injured his feet during active service and that he has had bilateral foot pain and tenderness since. Multiple service treatment records show that the Veteran was treated for bilateral foot pain during active service. During a VA examination conducted in March 2021, the Veteran stated that his bilateral foot began during active service and had worsened since. He was diagnosed with bilateral foot degenerative arthritis. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral foot arthritis was less likely than not related to his in-service injuries as there was no evidence of chronicity upon separation of active service, but the examiner did not specifically address the Veteran's lay assertions that he had worsening pain since his active-duty service. The examiner found that the Veteran's bilateral foot arthritis is most likely age related. During his October 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran stated that his bilateral foot pain began during active service and had worsened since. He reportedly had worn orthotics since active duty to treat his bilateral foot pain and tenderness. Lay testimony is competent as to matters capable of lay observation. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 309 (2007). The Board finds that the March 2021 opinion is inadequate in this regard. Also, in an April 2021 statement, the Veteran stated that his treating physician noted that his bilateral foot arthritis is the result of weight transfer from the heels to the small joints of his feet. This physician reportedly told the Veteran that over-usage of the small joints of the bilateral feet caused arthritis of his bilateral toes. These treatment records will be requested upon remand. Therefore, an addendum opinion is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request authorization from the Veteran to associate with the claims file all of his treatment records from his private physician that related his in-service foot injuries to his current diagnosis of bilateral foot arthritis. If the authorization cannot be obtained or the records cannot be located and/or no such records exist, the record should be annotated to reflect this. 2. Obtain a VA addendum opinion pertaining to the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral foot arthritis 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 must opine whether the Veteran's left and right foot disabilities are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the Veteran's report of worsening foot pain from standing for long periods of time during active service. Also, the examiner should address whether the current bilateral foot arthritis manifested by bilateral foot pain is the result of weight transfer from the heels to the small joints of his feet. Specifically, the examiner should address the Veteran's lay statements that he has had constant, worsening bilateral foot pain since service. 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.