Citation Nr: 21010633 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 17-11 556 DATE: February 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left foot spur removal plate installed is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1985 to April 1988, and from August 2005 to October 2005. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington. In January 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the electronic claims file.   1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for left foot spur removal plate installed is remanded. The Veteran contends that her in service foot conditions, suspected ganglion cyst and pes cavus, caused her left foot spur removal plate installed (left foot condition) and bilateral plantar fasciitis. See Form 9 received 3/02/2017 at page 2. At the January 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that while stationed at RAF Bentwaters in England she saw a podiatrist for pain in her foot. The podiatrist diagnosed her with a ganglion cyst on top of her foot. The Veteran believed that wearing military boots caused the ganglion cyst. See Hearing Transcript received 1/08/2021 at page 2. The podiatrist instructed her to wear something over the cyst but this did not relieve the pain, which the Veteran claims has been continuous since service. Id. at page 3. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records show a diagnosis of ganglion cyst on the left foot and a notation of pes caveus. See Medical Treatment Record-Government Facility received 11/29/2016. The Veteran’s current medical records show treatment for left foot pain and post-service foot surgery. See Medical Treatment Records received 5/08/2014 at page 17. Since no VA examiner has opined on the Veteran’s contention that her in service foot treatment is related to her current foot condition, the Board finds that a remand for a VA examination and medical opinion is warranted. These matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination for her (1) bilateral plantar fasciitis and (2) her left foot condition claimed as left foot spur removal plate installed. The examiner must review the claims file.   If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran’s condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a “disability” for the purpose of providing the requested opinions below. Please complete the Functional Impact section. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: (a) Is bilateral plantar fasciitis at least as likely as not related to service, including in service ganglion cyst and pes cavus? (b) Is her left foot condition, claimed as left foot spur removal plate installed, at least as likely as not related to service, including in service ganglion cyst and pes cavus? a. Please note the diagnosis of ganglion cyst on the left foot and a notation of pes cavus in service. See Medical Treatment Record-Government Facility received 11/29/2016, at 1-2. (Continued on the next page)   A comprehensive rationale for all opinions is to be provided. All pertinent evidence, including both lay and medical, should be considered. If an opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training).. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Dixon, 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.