Citation Nr: 21007061 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-16 568 DATE: February 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for pes planus, right foot is granted. Entitlement to service connection for pes planus, left foot is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s pes planus of the bilateral feet is related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for pes planus, right foot, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for pes planus, left foot have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served active duty service from October 1983 to October 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the January 2020 Board remand, the RO was requested to provide medical opinions for the Veteran’s bilateral foot condition. In August 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. The examination was adequate because it is based on a thorough examination, a description of the Veteran’s pertinent medical history, a complete review of the claims file, and the examiner provided a rationale for the opinions rendered. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007). Therefore, there has been substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). Subsequently, in the September 2020 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for plantar fasciitis, bilateral feet. However, in the September 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case, the RO denied service connection for pes planus, bilateral feet. Since the Veteran was not granted full benefits for his foot conditions, the issue is still on appeal. Neither the Veteran nor his representative have raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). 1. Entitlement to service connection for pes planus, right foot is granted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for pes planus, left foot is granted. The Veteran contends his pes planus, bilateral foot is related to service and due to his service-connected back condition. In the September 2019 Board hearing, he testified that his boot inserts and prolonged standing, marching and walking in service caused his current feet conditions, including pes planus. Also, he testified that that his back condition worsened his foot conditions as well. Generally, service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Service connection may also be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. In such an instance, the Veteran may be compensated for the degree of disability over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (b); see Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995). A veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, standard of proof for benefit claim decisions. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). The benefit of the doubt is applicable when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When a veteran seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the veteran prevails. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for benefits to be denied. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). The Veteran provided two buddy statements to support his contentions. In the first February 2020 statement, H.E. stated that the Veteran returned home in 1985 and was walking funny. H.E. stated that he noticed the Veteran was in pain and complained about his feet. Also, H.E. stated that the Veteran told him he started wearing inserts in his shoes in the military. In the second February 2020 statement, A.W. stated he was stationed with the Veteran between 1984-1985 as fire fighters. A.W. stated that the Veteran complained about his feet a lot and could not complete team sports. Also, A.W. stated that the Veteran complained about his boot inserts shifting. Ultimately, A.W. stated that the Veteran was placed in an office position due to his feet condition. In the May 2012 VA examination, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s bilateral foot conditions are not secondary to his service-connected back condition. The VA examiner reasoned that a lumbar strain does not cause pes planus nor plantar fasciitis. In the August 2020 VA examination, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s pes planus, bilateral foot was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, or illness. The VA examiner reasoned that there was no evidence of foot complaints or occupational hazards to cause pes planus. Regarding secondary service connection, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s pes planus, bilateral foot is less likely than not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected back condition. The VA examiner referenced the Veteran’s testimony concerning feet complaints in-service started as secondary to his boots; and reasoned that pes planus is typically caused by genetics, obesity and diabetes, not a lower back condition. Also, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s pes planus, bilateral foot was at least as likely as not aggravated beyond its natural progression by his service-connected back condition. The VA examiner reasoned that that she was unable to establish the exact date of the pes planus diagnosis. Also, she reasoned that there is no record of foot complaints during service, nor signs of aggravation. In the January 2020 private medical opinion Dr. P.S. opined that the Veteran’s pes planus, bilateral foot is most likely caused by or a result of his military activity. Dr. P.S. reasoned that the Veteran’s inserts for his combat boots during his military service caused bilateral heel and arch issues due to running, exercise, prolong standing, jumping, and now walking. Based upon review of the record, the Board finds the Veteran’s pes planus, bilateral foot is related to service. Although the August 2020 VA examiner provided a negative etiology for the Veteran’s pes planus, bilateral foot, Dr. P.S.’s medical opinion is more probative because it was based upon consistent treatment of the Veteran since 2016 and review of his complete medical record. Significantly, the Veteran has consistently and credibly stated that pes planus issues have persisted since service. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). This is further corroborated in his submitted buddy statements. Id. Therefore, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for pes planus, bilateral foot is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Willoughby, 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.