Citation Nr: 21076167 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 15-13 632 DATE: December 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability, to include ankle pain, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1983 to December 1999. In August 2018, January 2020, and November 2020, the issues of entitlement to service connection for a neck disability and bilateral foot disability, to include ankle pain, were remanded for additional evidentiary development. The case has been returned for appellate review. Pursuant to the November 2020 Board remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) was directed to, in part, to complete the following: . . . The AOJ should undertake the appropriate efforts to obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding service treatment records, as well as any relevant and outstanding VA or private treatment records. If any records sought are not obtained, a written statement to that effect should be incorporated into the record. As of this date, review of the claims file shows that outstanding private treatment records from Dr. D. C. dated from July 2018 to August 2020 were obtained and associated with the claims file in November 2020 pursuant to the Veteran's submission of a VA Form 21-4142 in November 2020. Nevertheless, there is no indication of record that an attempt was made to obtain any outstanding VA treatment records or service treatment records, or if so, that the Veteran was notified of such an attempt in a notice letter or in the July 2021 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). "[A] remand by... the Board confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, a right to compliance with the remand orders." Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As such, compliance with this directive of the November 2020 Board remand is necessary prior to appellate review, and if not, "the Board itself errs in failing to ensure compliance." Id. Additionally, pursuant to the November 2020 Board remand, the Veteran was afforded an additional VA examination for foot conditions in May 2021 which documents diagnoses of bilateral pes planus, bilateral plantar fasciitis, bilateral plantar and retrocalcaneal spurs, and right metatarsalgia great toe. While VA medical opinions were obtained for right and left foot disorders in July 2021 and for a left foot disorder in July 2021, the VA examiner did not address whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's diagnoses of bilateral pes planus or right metatarsalgia great toe and documented in-service occurrences. As such, the Board finds that an additional VA medical opinion is needed to properly adjudicate the issue on appeal regarding service connection for a bilateral foot disability. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination and/or opinion, it must ensure that the examination and/or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file all (a) outstanding VA treatment records and (b) service treatment records. If these records cannot be located, the AOJ must specifically document the attempts that were made to locate them and the Veteran must be notified. 2. Then, provide the Veteran's claims file to an appropriate clinician to provide an opinion regarding the Veteran's claim on appeal for a bilateral foot disability, to include ankle plain. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand should be made available to the examiner for review. A new examination (physical or telehealth) is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner must opine as to the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral pes planus began during active service or related to an incident of service, to include consideration of the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right metatarsalgia great toe began during active service or related to an incident of service, to include consideration of the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinions in the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. 3. Then, review all examination reports and medical opinions provided to ensure that the requested information was provided. If any report or opinion is deficient in any manner, the AOJ should implement corrective procedures. 4. Then, readjudicate the claims. A. HODZIC Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Carter, 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.