Citation Nr: 21011780 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 16-18 457 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Army from August 1971 to September 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeal (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2018, the Veteran testified at a video teleconference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of that transcript has been associated with the claims folder. In March 2019, the Board remanded the claim for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot condition is remanded. The Veteran contends that his foot condition is due to military service. Specifically, the condition had its onset during an incident in basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, when a Drill Sergeant instructed the Veteran to “take a shower that was already filled with water and what appeared to be contaminated with bacteria and stopped up with white floating articles.” The Veteran reported that he was seen at VA facilities in Alaska, California, and Arizona. The Veteran reports in VA treatment notes that he wanted letters describing his foot medical condition so he can “turn in these letters to personnel who are helping him get disability for his feet.” The Veteran has not identified if this was for a disability claim from VA or another federal agency. The Veteran reported that he is being seen by a private provider (Humana). Finally, the Veteran identified treatment for the foot condition in service. The Veteran does not identify if this treatment was only in Fort Leonard Wood or his duty station in Alaska. The record does not reflect the RO attempted to obtain the above records. Thus, a remand is necessary. The Veteran has been diagnosed with chronic tinea pedis, chronic onychomycosis, hyperkeratosis, dermatophytosis, athlete’s foot, hyperkeratotic plaques and maceration of the interdigital spaces. Therefore, medical opinions must be obtained which address the etiology of any other diagnosed foot condition. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding treatment records. Any records obtained should be associated with the claims file. Request from the Veteran to identify all treatment for his bilateral foot condition: a. any in-service treatment (duty station or off base facility) for his feet; b. any disability claims (other than VA) filed that may be related to his foot condition; c. the VA facilities that he reported treatment for his foot condition in Alaska, California, Arizona, and any others not previously reported; d. any private providers (including Humana) that he received treatment for his feet condition. 2. Once the development above is completed, obtain an addendum opinion by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed feet condition. The Veteran's claims file, including this remand, should be made available for review by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examiner should review the claims folder and this fact should be noted in the accompanying medical report. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnosed foot condition (chronic tinea pedis, chronic onychomycosis, hyperkeratosis, dermatophytosis, athlete’s foot, hyperkeratotic plaques and maceration of the interdigital spaces) is caused by his military service, to include the Veteran’s report of exposure to “water and what appeared to be contaminated with bacteria and stopped up with white floating articles” during a shower in basic training. The examiner is requested to provide a clear rationale and explain in detail the underlying reasoning for any opinions expressed. If an examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. (continued on next page) TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Edwin B. Esmenda, 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.