Citation Nr: 21012063 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 10-40 308 DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1971 to March 1973. This appeal has a long procedural history. In January 2021, the Veteran was informed that the Veterans Law Judge who held the September 2013 hearing in this appeal was no longer employed by the Board and was given an opportunity to appear at another hearing. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.604 (2020). The letter informed the Veteran that, if no response was received in 30 days, the Board would assume she did not want another hearing. The Veteran has not responded to the letter; therefore, no further action concerning a Board hearing in necessary. The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disorders as a direct result of her military service, to include the stressful pressure she experienced during rigorous drilling, turns, and running during boot camp. She also argues that her current right foot disorders are secondary to her left foot problems. This appeal previously was before the Board in April 2015 when the Veteran’s claims were remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) so that opinions could be obtained which addressed her contentions. Specifically, the Board noted that the July 2014 VA medical opinion did not provide a nexus opinion with respect to each of the foot diagnoses rendered during the appeal period, such as metatarsalgia, hallux valgus, and hallux rigidus. The Board directed the AOJ to obtain an addendum opinion which addressed the Veteran’s contentions and each of her foot diagnoses. In providing the opinion, the Board directed the AOJ to address the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of her symptoms since service. Opinions were obtained in December 2015 and April 2016; however, the Board finds that they are insufficient to adjudicate the claims on appeal. Significantly, these opinions appear to be based solely on the lack of objective evidence showing chronic symptomatology during and following service and do not reflect consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements concerning the onset and continuity of her bilateral foot symptoms. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007); Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 257 (2020). The Board notes in this regard that, when VA undertakes to obtain an evaluation, it must ensure that the evaluation is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Given that the medical evidence of record fails to address the issues raised, the Board finds that, on remand, the Veteran should be afforded a new VA examination. In Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998), the Court held that a remand by the Board confers on the appellant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders. It was error for the AOJ to re-certify this appeal to the Board without complying with the April 2015 remand instructions. Given this error, another remand is required. The AOJ also should obtain the Veteran’s updated treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct any appropriate development to obtain the Veteran’s updated treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for examination to determine whether any bilateral feet disorders, to include degenerative joint disease, metatarsalgia, hallux valgus, and hallux rigidus, are related to active service. The claims file and a copy of this REMAND should be provided to the clinician for review. Based on a review of the claims file, the clinician is asked to identify all bilateral foot disorders, to include degenerative joint disease, metatarsalgia, hallux valgus, and hallux rigidus, currently experienced by the Veteran. The clinician next is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that any bilateral foot disorders, to include degenerative joint disease, metatarsalgia, hallux valgus, and hallux rigidus, currently experienced by the Veteran are related to active service or any incident of service, to include in-service treatment for left foot problems. The clinician also is asked to state whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that a left foot disorder, if diagnosed, caused or aggravated (permanently worsened) any right foot disorder, if diagnosed. A complete rationale must be provided for any opinion(s) expressed. A separate opinion and rationale must be provided for each of the foot disorders currently experienced by the Veteran, if appropriate. If any requested opinion(s) cannot be provided without resorting to speculation, then the clinician must explain why this is so. The clinician is advised that the Veteran contends that her bilateral foot disorders began during service, specifically as a result of the stressful pressure she experienced during rigorous drilling, turns, and running during boot camp. The clinician also is advised that the lack of contemporaneous records documenting complaints of or treatment for bilateral foot disorders, alone, is insufficient rationale for a medical nexus opinion. 3. Review the examination, once obtained, and determine whether it complies substantially with the terms of this REMAND. If not, please take appropriate corrective action. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 4. Readjudicate the appeal. MICHAEL T. OSBORNE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board James R. Springer, 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.