Citation Nr: 21006674 Decision Date: 02/04/21 Archive Date: 02/04/21 DOCKET NO. 13-16 579 DATE: February 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to payment or reimbursement for an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly pension (SMP) based on the need for aid and attendance is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from October 1973 to October 1976. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina. 1. Right and Left Foot Disabilities When VA undertakes to provide an examination for a claim for service connection, even if not statutorily obliged to do so, it must provide an adequate one or, at minimum, notify the claimant why one will not or cannot be provided. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The Veteran has been afforded two VA examinations and medical nexus opinions in support of his claim for service connection for right and left foot disabilities during the claim period, in November 2017 and September 2019. The Board previously found in a February 2019 remand that the November 2017 VA examination and opinion was inadequate for VA purposes, as it “appear[ed] to completely ignore the Veteran’s reports of having foot pain and swelling in service,” notwithstanding the fact that the Veteran is competent to report his own symptoms. Unfortunately, the Board now finds that the September 2019 VA examination and opinion is inadequate as well, and for the same reason. At the examination, the Veteran reported foot pain and disability throughout service, with continuing pain and swelling in the present. Nevertheless, the examiner concluded that there was not “sufficient evidence” that the Veteran’s current foot conditions were related to his service, on the grounds that “there is essentially a 30 plus year gap between his claims and actual diagnosis for these conditions.” However, the Veteran is competent to report his own symptoms, as the Board noted in its February 2019 remand, and the absence of a diagnosis does not mean the absence of a condition. Therefore, because the examiner inappropriately discounted the Veteran’s own reported history of his condition, the Board finds that the September 2019 VA examination is inadequate and a remand is necessary to provide the Veteran a new VA examination and opinion in support of this claim. In remanding this issue, the Board does not make a preliminary formal finding as to the credibility of the Veteran’s report of in-service injuries. Rather, the Board merely requests that on remand the examiner accept the Veteran’s testimony for purposes of the medical nexus opinion. See Smith v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 332, 337 (2020). 2. Automobile Allowance and SMP Where a pending claim is inextricably intertwined with other claims currently on appeal, the appropriate remedy is to remand the claim pending the adjudication of the inextricably intertwined claims. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). Here, the Veteran is seeking entitlement to an automobile allowance and to SMP based on the need for aid and attendance, both of which may be warranted for loss or loss of use of both feet. Although there is no evidence presently of loss or loss of use of the feet, the Veteran’s claim for service connection for disabilities of the right and left feet is remanded herein for a new VA examination, and that examination may produce new evidence supporting such a finding, which could be dispositive of the claims for an automobile allowance and SMP based on the need for aid and attendance. See VA Examinations dated November 2017, September 2019 (noting foot disability causing difficulty with prolonged walking or standing, but not constituting loss of use of feet). Therefore, because the Veteran’s claims for payment or reimbursement for an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only and for SMP based on the need for aid and attendance hinge on the adjudication of his claims for service connection for disabilities of the right and left feet, the Board cannot adjudicate the former claims apart from the latter. Accordingly, the Veteran’s claims for payment or reimbursement for an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only and for SMP based on the need for aid and attendance are remanded pending the adjudication of his claims for service connection for disabilities of the right and left feet. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. After completing the development outlined in Item 1., schedule the Veteran for a VA examination and opinion in support of his claims for service connection for right and left foot disabilities. Upon thorough review of the claims file and physical examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran’s current right and left foot disabilities had their onset in or are otherwise related to his active duty service, to include injuries from a reported ten-mile march and/or injuries or chronic stress due to ill-fitting combat boots during basic training and throughout service. For purposes of providing the requested opinion, please accept as true the Veteran’s report of foot injuries resulting from a ten-mile march and injuries or chronic stress due to ill-fitting combat boots during basic training and throughout service. (The Board reminds the Veteran that in asking the examiner to accept his testimony, the Board does not at this time make a finding as to the credibility of his testimony.) The examiner must provide a fully articulated medical rationale for each opinion, citing to peer-reviewed medical literature referenced in formulating it, if any. If the examiner finds that an opinion cannot be provided, this conclusion should also be clearly explained (e.g. lack of sufficient information/evidence in this case, or a lack of knowledge among the medical community at large, and not the insufficient knowledge of the individual examiner). S.C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Timmerman, 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.