Citation Nr: 21022491 Decision Date: 04/15/21 Archive Date: 04/15/21 DOCKET NO. 15-23 191 DATE: April 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left foot disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right foot disorder, to include as secondary to left foot disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1976 to June 1977 and in the Army Reserves until April 1979. In November 2019, the Board granted the issue of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include psychosis, and remanded the issues of service connection for left and right foot disorders for additional evidentiary development. The case has been returned to the Board for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for left foot disorder 2. Entitlement to service connection for right foot disorder, to include as secondary to left foot disorder In a June 2012 statement to her congressional representative, the Veteran reported she was hurt during basic training in 1976. She specifically noted the boots stressed her feet giving her warts and bunions and she had a soft cast on the right foot. In the April 2013 notice of disagreement, the Veteran further reported that while stationed at Fort Jackson she “pulled the lig[a]ments in [her right] foot and had a soft cast-like wrapping on [the] foot for about a week [and] [t]his foot still bothers [her] to this day.” She also noted getting “bunions on both feet from [her] boots and recently had a bunionectomy on [her] right foot.” Pursuant to the November 2019 Board remand directives, the Veteran was provided a VA examination for foot conditions, including flatfoot (pes planus), in September 2020 and multiple VA medical opinions in September 2020. Review of these VA medical opinions do not indicate the VA examiner took into consideration the Veteran’s reported in-service incidents related to her feet, as noted above. The Veteran is competent to report symptoms of bilateral foot pain during her period of active service. As a result, the Board finds that additional development is needed to determine the etiology of her right and left feet disorders. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2019); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The September 2020 opinion regarding whether the Veteran’s left foot disability caused her right foot disability is adequate because the examiner’s explanation is well reasoned and was provided after a review of the claims file. The Board emphasizes that it is not determining whether or not the Veteran’s assertions of foot injury during service are credible at this time, as the additional development set forth in the directives below could impact that determination. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Return the Veteran’s claims file to the examiner who conducted the September 2020 VA examination for foot conditions so a supplemental opinion may be provided. If that examiner is no longer available, provide the Veteran’s claims file to a similarly qualified clinician. The entire claims file and a copy of this remand must be made available to the examiner for review. A new examination (physical or telehealth) is only required if deemed necessary by the examiner. For the purposes of this remand only, and for the limited purpose of conducting the examination and providing a medical opinion, the examiner should assume that the Veteran’s assertions of in-service foot injury are true. If there is a medical reason to doubt its veracity, the examiner should explain why the Veteran’s recollection is inconsistent with the principles of medical science and/or the evidence in this case. First, the examiner must opine as to the following for the left foot disorder: Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s left foot disorder, to include bunions, warts, callus, and corn (even if since resolved) began during active service or is related to an incident of service. The Veteran reported in-service foot injury during basic training in 1976, boots stressed her feet giving her warts and bunions. Second, the examiner must opine as to the following for the right foot disorder: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s right foot disorder, to include warts, Achilles tendinitis, pes planus, post-surgical hallux valgus, status post bunionectomy, and corn (even if since resolved) began during active service or is related to an incident of service. The Veteran reported in-service foot injury during basic training in 1976, boots stressed her feet giving her warts, bunions, and use of a soft cast on the right foot, as well as pulled ligaments in the right foot. (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s right foot disorder was aggravated beyond its natural progression by her left foot disorder. The examiner must provide all findings, along with a complete rationale for his or her opinion(s) in the examination report. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and provide a rationale for such conclusion. 2. Then, review all examination reports and medical opinions provided to ensure that the requested information was provided. If any report or opinion is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures. 3. Then, readjudicate the claims. If any decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Carter, 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.