Citation Nr: 21005817 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-58 015 DATE: February 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s bilateral pes planus began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the United States Army from September 1974 to October 1977. A hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2020. A copy of the transcript is in the record. In July 2020, the Board remanded the Veteran’s service connection claims for bilateral hearing loss and bilateral pes planus to obtain VA examinations for these claimed conditions. With respect to the Veteran’s service connection claim for bilateral pes planus, the Board notes that the Veteran underwent a VA examination in September 2020 for his pes planus. Therefore, the Board is satisfied there was substantial compliance with its remand orders. See Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). With respect to the Veteran’s service connection claim for bilateral hearing loss, in a September 2020 rating decision, the RO granted the Veteran’s service connection claim for bilateral hearing loss. As this grant represents the full grant of benefits sought on appeal, the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is no longer before the Board. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is denied. The Veteran contends that he has bilateral pes planus and foot problems that began in service. At the outset, the Board notes that the September 2020 VA examiner noted diagnoses of bilateral foot pes planus, hammer toes, arthritis and hallux valgus. Therefore, the first element of service connection, a diagnosis, has been met. Second, as noted above, the Veteran reported that he has a foot condition due to his duties in the military, such as marching. Specifically, in the May 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that, as a “foot soldier,” he did everything by foot, including miles of marches. He also testified that he wasn’t sure whether the boots he wore at the time were adequate. He reported that he has had issues with calluses on his feet due to the activities he underwent in service. Indeed, a June 1976 service treatment record (STR) notes treatment of calluses. Given the Veteran’s competent and credible lay statements and the June 1976 STR noting treatment of calluses, the Board finds that the second element of service connection, an in-service incurrence, has been met. Therefore, the only remaining issue is whether a nexus may be established. With respect to a nexus, the September 2020 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral foot condition is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. With respect to the left foot, the examiner reasoned that his September 1977 exit report of medical history found him to have normal feet. There was no evidence of pes planus, hallux valgus, arthritis, or hammer toes. The Veteran had painful calluses on his feet June 1976, and the calluses were treated with padding. There is no evidence of recurrence or persistence of a left foot callus condition. Therefore, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s left foot condition was not caused by and was not otherwise related to his active service. With respect to the right foot, the examiner reasoned that his September 1977 exit report of medical history found him to have normal feet. There was no evidence of pes planus, hallux valgus, or hammer toes. The Veteran had painful calluses on his feet in June 1976, and the calluses were treated with padding. There is no evidence of recurrence or persistence of a right foot callus condition. Therefore, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s bilateral foot condition was not caused by and was not otherwise related to his active service. The examiner’s opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran believes his pes planus is related to his active service. However, the Board finds that the Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue of the cause of his foot disabilities is medically complex and requires medical knowledge and training. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the September 2020 VA opinion. Lacking a nexus, entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus, or other foot disability, is not warranted. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. E. Grossman, 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.