Citation Nr: 21025174 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-27 112A DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1976 to March 1978. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a May 2019 decision, the Board denied service connection for a right foot disorder and service connection for a left foot disorder. The Veteran appealed the Board’s May 2019 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), which issued an Order in July 2020 granting a July 2020 Joint Partial Motion for Remand (JMPR). The Court’s Order vacated and remanded the Board’s decision denying service connection for a right foot disorder and service connection for a left foot disorder for action consistent with the terms of the JMPR. The Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in December 2018. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The VLJ who conducted the December 2018 hearing is no longer with the Board. In March 2021, VA informed the Veteran that the December 2018 hearing VLJ is no longer available and offered the opportunity to have an additional Board hearing. In April 2021, the Veteran informed the Board he did “not wish to appear at another Board hearing.” See April 20210 Correspondence. As such, the Board finds that the hearing request was withdrawn. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disorder 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder The Veteran contends his bilateral foot disorders are related to his active duty service. The Veteran’s VA treatment records reflect diagnoses of bilateral calcaneal spurs and bilateral plantar fasciitis. See December 2018 and August 2014 VA Treatment Notes. Service treatment records (STRs) show treatment for complaints of bilateral foot and heel pain to include after marching. The STRs also note the presence of possible bony deformities. See STRs, including medical notes dated in June 1977, August 1977, September 1977, October 1977, January 1978 (Report of Medical History, noting he has or has had foot pain) and February 1978. The Veteran was afforded a VA foot examination in September 2013, in connection with which the examiner opined that his right and left foot disorders were less likely than not related to his active duty service. However, the September 2013 addendum opinion fails to explain why the Veteran’s current foot disorders are not related to the possible bony deformities and/or heel pain noted during service and his current bilateral foot disorders. Thus, the medical opinion is inadequate for adjudicative purposes. For the above reasons, the Board finds that a new VA foot examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed right and left foot disorders is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them to the record. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination with a podiatrist to determine the nature and etiology of his right and left foot disorders. The claims file, to include a copy of this Remand, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner should note such review was conducted. After the record review and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should identify all right and left foot disorders present. Then, for each disorder identified, the examiner is requested to opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s right and/or left foot disorder was incurred in, or otherwise related to, his active duty service. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. The Veteran’s STRs, to include medical entries dated from June 1977 to February 1978, as well as his lay statements must be considered. If the examiner finds that he or she cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner must explain why this is so. That is, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical   science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Battaile 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.