Citation Nr: 21076294
Decision Date: 12/23/21	Archive Date: 12/23/21

DOCKET NO. 16-35 915
DATE: December 23, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for plantar fasciitis is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1973 to August 1977.  He appeals a November 1974 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for plantar fasciitis.

In August 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript is of record.

1. Entitlement to service connection for plantar fasciitis is remanded.

The preexisting nature of the Veteran's pes planus (flat feet) is noted upon entrance to service and is not in dispute.  He argues that his pes planus was worsened by the rigors of active service such that he developed his currently diagnosed plantar fasciitis.  Unfortunately, he has yet to be afforded a VA examination to evaluate his claim.  As there is an indication that his current plantar fasciitis may be attributable to active service and there is insufficient evidence to decide the claim, a medical examination is necessary.  See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2006).  Thus, remand for a VA examination is necessary.

 

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records that are currently not of record.  If the Veteran has received any relevant private treatment, he should be afforded the opportunity to submit these records.

2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by a qualified medical professional to determine the etiology of his plantar fasciitis.  The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's plantar fasciitis is related (i.e. caused by or worsened by) to active service, to include as proximately due to his preexisting pes planus? 

The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions.  If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports of symptomatology, he or she must provide a reason for doing so

The complete rationale for all opinions should be set forth.

 

 

B.T. KNOPE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Daniel Ballinger, Associate Counsel