Citation Nr: 21075699 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 17-46 347 DATE: December 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral flat feet with right foot plantar fasciitis and Morton's neuroma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the U.S. Air Force from June 1971 to May 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an October 2012 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in August 2021. A transcript of that hearing is of record. During the hearing, the VLJ clarified the issues, asked if there was outstanding evidence and held the file open for the submission of evidence. Such actions comply with 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. An April 2020 rating decision severed service connection for the Veteran's separate disability rating for Morton's neuroma. During the August 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran appeared to object to the validity of the severance, but the file does not contain a notice of disagreement. However, it does not appear that this issue has been addressed by the AOJ. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over this issue. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral flat feet with right foot plantar fasciitis and Morton's neuroma The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher rating for his bilateral flat feet with right foot plantar fasciitis and Morton's neuroma. During his August 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his foot conditions had increased in severity since the time of his last VA examination in November 2019. Moreover, the examination addressed only the right foot, indicating that the opposite foot was not damaged. The duty to get a new examination is triggered only when the available evidence indicates that the previous examination no longer reflects the current state of the Veteran's disability. The duty to assist does not require that a claim be remanded solely because of the passage of time since an otherwise adequate VA examination was conducted. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181-83 (2007); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). Because the Veteran contends that his foot disability is worse, a new VA examination is warranted to assess the current severity of his condition. Additionally, the Veteran testified that foot swelling, numbness, and varicose veins are symptoms of his flat feet. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral flat feet with right foot plantar fasciitis and Morton's neuroma. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. The examiner should address whether foot swelling, numbness, and varicose veins are part of his foot disability. In so doing, the examiner must test the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner should attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement based on direct observation, the examiner should provide an estimate, if at all possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran's statements. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, a deficiency in the record, or the examiner does not have the knowledge or training. 3. If any of the benefits sought are not granted in full, the AOJ should furnish the Veteran and his representative with an SSOC and afford an opportunity to respond. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Fitzgerald, 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.