Citation Nr: 21007871
Decision Date: 02/11/21	Archive Date: 02/11/21

DOCKET NO. 19-18 890
DATE: February 11, 2021

REMANDED

The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1960 to August 1963.

This appeal is from a June 2018 rating decision, and was remanded in September 2020.

The claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is remanded.

The Veteran asserts that he had trouble during service with his feet because he was made to wear boots that were two sizes two big.  He reports his feet were normal at entry and that they were not examined at separation, but they have been painful since then.  

The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in October 2020, but the resulting report is inadequate because it is based entirely on a lack of documentation during service.  This is an insufficient basis on which to deny service connection, and an inadequate opinion.  On remand, another opinion must be obtained.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain updated treatment records.

2. After completion of directive 1, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination of the bilateral feet for an opinion on whether any diagnosis is as likely as not (50/50 probability or greater) related to his service.  Specifically, the Veteran has asserted that he was forced to wear size 10 boots when his feet were a size 12.  His treating physician has attributed flat feet to this cause, but has not provided explanation for that opinion.  The examiner is asked to elicit from the Veteran a detailed history of his symptoms in and since service, and to review the relevant literature on the long-term effects of wearing footwear that is too small.   All opinions must be accompanied with explanation.

 

 

Nathaniel J. Doan

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Gibson

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.