Citation Nr: 21022068 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 17-56 153A DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for fungal rot of the feet (foot disability) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from August 1962 to August 1967 with additional periods of reserve service. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeal (Board) on appeal from a July 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a video conference hearing in November 2019. A transcript of that hearing has been added to the Veteran’s file. The Board previously remanded the appeal in January 2020, and the matter has been returned for appellate consideration. Entitlement to service connection for fungal rot of the feet (foot disability) is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for fungal rot on his feet. He contends that his foot disability is related to exposure to wet conditions in service. The Veteran identified the inability to properly dry his feet after showering in boot camp, beach landings, monsoon rainfall in Okinawa, and walking through swamps as the wet conditions that he was exposed to during service. The Veteran stated that he was treated for foot rot during service with white powder and endorsed the occurrence of in-service blisters. To determine the etiology of the Veteran’s current foot disability, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2020 VA examination. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran as suffering from dermatophytosis, specifically bilateral toenail onychomycosis with tinea pedis. In offering an opinion, the examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s contentions concerning the inability to properly dry his feet after showering in boot camp, beach landings, monsoon rainfall in Okinawa, and walking through swamps, as well as the Veteran’s claim that he was treated during his active service for foot rot with white powder and the occurrence of in-service blisters. The VA examiner opined, however, that there is no compelling medical evidence that the Veteran’s bilateral toenail onychomycosis with tinea pedis had its onset during his active duty or is otherwise related to his active service. The examiner highlighted numerous periodic examinations from the Veteran’s inactive service that noted no foot condition. The wording of the examiner’s statement ultimately gives the Board pause. Notably, the examiner’s statement that there is “no compelling medical record evidence that” the Veteran’s disability is related to his service seems to differ materially from the standard that it simply be at least as likely as not that a disability be related to service. Further, the statement that there is a lack of treatment records confirming a diagnosis of or treatment for the Veteran’s claimed disability seems to suggest that a disability must be documented for service-connected to be warranted. Again, this is not the correct standard. While there is no reasons and bases requirement imposed on VA examiners, the language of the opinion presents a sufficient reason to seek clarification of the opinion rendered. Accordingly, a remand is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s claimed fungal rot of the feet (bilateral foot disability) is related to his active service. Whether an examination is needed prior to rendering this opinion is left to the discretion of the examiner. Regardless of whether an examination is performed, the examiner is to state whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current bilateral toenail onychomycosis with tinea pedis is related to his active service, to include the Veteran in-service contentions. The examiner must specifically note and discuss the Veteran’s contention that his current toenail onychomycosis with tinea pedis is related to exposure to wet conditions in service, to include the inability to properly dry his feet after showering in boot camp, beach landings, monsoon rainfall in Okinawa, and walking through swamps. The Veteran stated that he was treated for foot rot during service with white powder and endorsed the occurrence of in-service blisters. In offering an opinion, the examiner may cite the lack of treatment records regarding the Veteran’s claimed disability, but the lack of records alone may not be the only reason that the examiner forms a negative opinion. Instead, the examiner should state whether the Veteran’s current disability would be noted on his periodic examinations (and why any negative finding is significant), as well as whether the Veteran’s current disability could nevertheless be related to service despite the lack of medical evidence given his in-service risk factors. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Higgins, 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.