Citation Nr: 21015201 Decision Date: 03/16/21 Archive Date: 03/16/21 DOCKET NO. 15-39 735 DATE: March 16, 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 in the United States Navy from May 1974 to January 1975. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2019, the Board remanded the appeal for further development. The case has now returned to the Board for further adjudication. In November 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge who is no longer employed at the Board. A transcript is of record. In January 2021, the Board notified the Veteran that the Veterans Law Judge that conducted the hearing was no longer employed by the Board and requested that he respond within thirty days of the letter if he desired another hearing. To date, the Veteran has not responded to the letter. The Veteran has been diagnosed with mallet toes, pain and numbness in both feet, and peripheral neuropathy in the feet and toes. See e.g. June 2005, August 2011, August 2012, and March 2015 VA treatment records; April 2016 VA examination report. The Veteran has asserted that his bilateral foot disorder developed as the result of performing two thousand jumping jacks during boot camp around June or July 1974. See March 2015 notice of disagreement; June 2015 decision review officer hearing transcript; November 2018 Board hearing transcript. An April 2016 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with mild peripheral lower extremity neuropathy and stated that there was no evidence that the disorder originated in or developed during the Veteran’s military service. However, the VA examiner did not address the Veteran’s contentions that he developed a bilateral foot condition as the result of performing two thousand jumping jacks during boot camp. Therefore, an additional VA medical opinion is needed to address the nature and etiology of his bilateral foot disorder. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should request that the Veteran provide the names and addresses of any and all healthcare providers who have provided treatment for his feet. After acquiring this information and obtaining any necessary authorization, the AOJ should obtain and associate these records with the claims file. The AOJ should also secure any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. After completing the foregoing development, the AOJ should obtain an additional medical opinion to determine the nature and etiology of any bilateral foot disorder that may be present. An additional physical examination is only needed if deemed necessary by the VA examiner. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including the Veteran’s service treatment records, post-service medical records, and assertions. The examiner should note that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including injuries and observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has any current bilateral foot disorder that manifested in service or that is related to military service, to include any injuries that may have occurred in service. The examiner should specifically address the Veteran’s contentions that he developed a bilateral foot disorder as the result of performing two thousand jumping jacks during boot camp. (Continued on the next page)   A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Because it is important “that each disability be viewed in relation to its history[,]” 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, copies of all pertinent records in the Veteran’s claims file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available for the examiner to review. 3. After completing these actions, the AOJ should conduct any other development as may be indicated. J. SAIKH Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. J. Williams, 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.