Citation Nr: 21024670 Decision Date: 04/23/21 Archive Date: 04/23/21 DOCKET NO. 16-10 566 DATE: April 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral athlete's foot is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for headaches is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 1967 to September 1971. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral athlete's foot is remanded. The Board remanded the bilateral athlete’s foot claim in May 2019 for a VA examination and opinion, which was obtained in June 2020. The examiner concluded that the Veteran’s athlete’s foot was not related to herbicide exposure and noted that it was an infection that can be treated with antifungals but often recurs. She also noted that it commonly occurs in people whose feet become sweaty while confined in tight fitting shoes and can be spread via floors, including locker rooms and communal baths/showers. However, the examiner failed to address the Veteran’s service on a ship with communal baths and contentions that his athlete’s foot began in service and has recurred since that time. As she opined that communal baths were a risk factor and the normal course of athlete’s foot was consistent with the Veteran’s reported course, the Board finds that the opinion is inadequate for failing to address these points. As such, it must be remanded for an addendum opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is remanded. The Board remanded the right foot claim in May 2019 for a VA examination and opinion, which was obtained in June 2020. The examiner concluded that the Veteran’s right foot disability was not related to service because his first documented complaint was in 2009. However, she dismisses his reports of continuous foot symptoms since service. The mere fact that an appellant’s assertions are not supported by contemporaneous clinical evidence does not render them inherently incredible. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“the Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence.”). Moreover, she indicated that walking or standing for long periods of time, particularly on hard surfaces, was a risk factor for plantar fasciitis, but did not apply this risk factor to the Veteran’s reports of going up and down stairs (a hard surface) during his military service. She also indicated that wearing tight shoes between ages 20 and 39 was a risk factor for the later development of hallux valgus but dismissed the fact that the Veteran’s service was between ages 20 and 24. In light of these deficiencies, the Board finds that the right foot claim must also be remanded for an addendum opinion. See Barr, supra. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is remanded. The Board remanded the left foot claim in May 2019 for a VA examination and opinion, which was obtained in June 2020. The examiner concluded that the Veteran’s left foot disability was not related to service because his first documented complaint was in 2009. However, she dismisses his reports of continuous foot symptoms since service. The mere fact that an appellant’s assertions are not supported by contemporaneous clinical evidence does not render them inherently incredible. Buchanan, supra. Moreover, she indicated that walking or standing for long periods of time, particularly on hard surfaces, was a risk factor for plantar fasciitis, but did not apply this risk factor to the Veteran’s reports of going up and down stairs (a hard surface) during his military service. She also indicated that wearing tight shoes between ages 20 and 39 was a risk factor for the later development of hallux valgus but dismissed the fact that the Veteran’s service was between ages 20 and 24. In light of these deficiencies, the Board finds that the left foot claim must also be remanded for an addendum opinion. See Barr, supra. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is remanded. The Board remanded the left knee claim in February 2019 for a new VA examination and readjudication. The AOJ obtained a new VA examination in December 2020 but did not readjudicate the claim or provide a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), as directed in the February 2019 Board remand. As the Board’s remand directives have not been satisfied, the claim must be remanded for the issuance of an SSOC. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see also C.F.R. § 19.31(c). 5. Entitlement to service connection for headaches is remanded. The Board remanded the headaches claim in February 2019 for a new VA examination and readjudication. The AOJ obtained a new VA examination in December 2020 but did not readjudicate the claim or provide a SSOC, as directed in the February 2019 Board remand. As the Board’s remand directives have not been satisfied, the claim must be remanded for the issuance of an SSOC. See Stegall, supra; see also C.F.R. § 19.31(c). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Review all evidence submitted or obtained since the January 2018 SSOC for the left knee and headaches claims, including the December 2020 VA examination reports. Thereafter, readjudicate the Veteran’s claims for service connection for a left knee disability and headaches. If any the benefit sought remains denied, an SSOC should be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After they have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review. 2. Note that the Board recognizes the potential practical difficulties in scheduling an examination in light of the COVID-19 epidemic and requests flexibility and understanding in affording the Veteran any warranted examination. Provide the Veteran’s claims file to an examiner(s) other than the June 2020 examiner to opine on the nature and etiology of his bilateral athlete’s foot and bilateral foot disabilities. The Veteran may be recalled for examination if deemed necessary. With regard to athlete’s foot, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current athlete’s foot is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The examiner must specifically address: (1) the circumstances of the Veteran’s service, including use of communal showers, and (2) the Veteran’s contentions that his athlete’s foot first began in service and has recurred since that time. With regard to the bilateral foot conditions (other than athlete’s foot), the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s right and/or left foot disabilities are related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The examiner must specifically address: (1) the Veteran’s history of going up and down stairs when serving aboard a ship, and (2) his contentions of bilateral foot pain since service. 3. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL. IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED.IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moore, 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.