Citation Nr: 21011908 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 18-27 879 DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from August 1988 to January 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2017 rating decision of a VA Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before a Board Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in his May 2018 Form 9 and April 2019 Form 8. In November 2019 correspondence, the Veteran was notified that a hearing had been scheduled for February 2020. In the Veteran’s January 2021 Appellate Brief, his representative informed the Board that the Veteran did not attend the hearing and requested that the Board proceed with the record before it. The Veteran asserts that his preexisting bilateral pes planus was aggravated by his active service. See May 2017 representative’s statement. During the Veteran’s June 2017 VA examination for foot conditions, the VA examiner opined that his pes planus was less likely than not related to service; however, the examiner did not address whether the condition preexisted or was aggravated by service. The Veteran’s pes planus is clearly documented in his service treatment records (STR) in his April 1988 entrance medical examination; therefore, the case must be remanded so that an etiology opinion can be obtained that addresses whether the Veteran’s claimed condition clearly and unmistakably preexisted active service and, if so, whether it was clearly and unmistakably aggravated by service. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Forward the Veteran’s claims file to the June 2017 VA examiner, and, if the examiner is unavailable, forward the Veteran’s claims file to another qualified medical professional to obtain an addendum opinion to answer the question of whether it is clear and unmistakable (undebatable) that the Veteran’s bilateral foot condition existed prior to service and, if so, whether clear and unmistakable (undebatable) evidence establishes that the bilateral foot condition was not aggravated (worsened beyond natural progression) during active service? This opinion must be phrased in the language highlighted above and must be supported by a rationale. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Hicks, 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.