Citation Nr: 21014906 Decision Date: 03/16/21 Archive Date: 03/16/21 DOCKET NO. 20-30 681 DATE: March 16, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral pes planus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1962 to January 1964. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran filed a claim of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) in June 2015. This TDIU claim is part of a separate appeal stream and the issue remains pending as it was remanded in a separate Board decision in February 2021. Although a TDIU claim would ordinarily be raised by the record as part and parcel of the 2018 increased rating claim for pes planus pursuant to Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), the Board will not address entitlement to a TDIU in this decision as it is fully addressed in a separate appeal stream and to address it again in this decision would be a waste of judicial resources as the TDIU claim that was filed in 2015 and is addressed in the separate appeal stream fully encompasses the 2018 Rice TDIU claim that would be raised in the instant appeal. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral pes planus is remanded. An October 2020 VA treatment record reflects that the Veteran may be receiving private treatment for his pes planus at Summit Sports Medicine. There is no indication that efforts have been made to associate these potentially relevant private treatment records with the claims file. Thus, remand is warranted to attempt to associate any relevant private treatment records with the claims file. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2018 regarding his bilateral pes planus. The Board finds the December 2018 VA examination to be inadequate because the VA examiner did not review any of the Veteran’s records. In addition, the December 2018 VA examiner did not address the conflicting medical evidence of record that establishes that the Veteran suffers from swelling on use and has callosities. Finally, new, relevant VA treatment records have been associated with the claims file since the December 2018 VA examination. For these reasons, remand for new a VA examination is warranted. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify any private treatment that he may have had for his pes planus, particularly for treatment at Summit Sports Medicine. After securing the necessary releases, attempt to obtain and associate those identified treatment records with the claims file. If any identified records cannot be obtained and further attempts would be futile, such should be noted in the claims file and the Veteran should be notified so that he can make an attempt to obtain those records on his own behalf. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination, preferably with a clinician who has not previously examined the Veteran, to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected bilateral pes planus. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, he or she must provide a reason for doing so. All findings must be reported in detail and all opinions must be accompanied by a clear rationale. If any of the above issues cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation, then a detailed medical explanation as to why this is so must be provided. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Elias, 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.