Citation Nr: 21010681 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 10-32 459 DATE: February 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT A bilateral foot disability is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service in the United States Marine Corps from December 1993 to December 1997. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2007 and October 2008 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran maintains that his bilateral foot disability is related to his active service or, alternatively, secondary to his service-connected back disability. Service treatment records (STRs) documented that the Veteran had asymptomatic, mild pes planus at his May 1992 enlistment examination. Furthermore, he reported pain on the bottom of his left foot with prolonged standing. Thus, the Board finds that the presumption of soundness does not apply at entry. In June and July 1994, the Veteran indicated that he had foot trouble to include top and bottom foot pain with walking, after physical training, and with prolonged standing. He complained of calluses on his left foot and increased pain with forced marches and running in February 1996. Finally, the Veteran reported foot pain on the top and side at his November 1997 separation examination. The Veteran has reported that he first experienced symptoms associated with a bilateral foot disability while he was in active service and that those symptoms have continued since that time. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). The Board finds the Veteran’s statements credible in that respect. A review of post-service VA medical records revealed a diagnosis for plantar fasciitis in 2008. Although there are VA medical opinions against the claim, a November 2019 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s plantar fasciitis was at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by his active service. The examiner determined that the Veteran had minimal tenderness over the soles of both feet, especially over the plantar surfaces of both heels which was best elicited by passive dorsiflexion of the toes. The examiner’s opinion was based on the Veteran’s statements, review of medical records, and physical evaluation. Moreover, the Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As noted above, the Veteran is competent to identify symptoms related to a foot disability and report on the chronicity of symptomatology since active service. Moreover, his statements have been found credible. In sum, the Veteran has competently and credibly reported that his foot disability had its onset in and has continued since service. While there are VA medical opinions of record against the claim, the November 2019 VA medical opinion weighs in favor of the Veteran’s claim. Further, the Veteran has a current bilateral foot disability, which has been diagnosed as bilateral plantar fasciitis. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim is at least in equipoise. Therefore, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran and entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). REASONS FOR REMAND The Board notes that the issue of entitlement to a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the grant of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability herein. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Hence, a determination on the TDIU claim should be deferred pending assignment of a corresponding rating for service-connected bilateral foot disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct the appropriate development for the claim of entitlement to a TDIU, to include obtaining a current VA Form 21-8940. 2. Then, adjudicate the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. SONJA A. MISHALANIE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ware, 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.