Citation Nr: 21026602 Decision Date: 05/03/21 Archive Date: 05/03/21 DOCKET NO. 16-27 592A DATE: May 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from March 1976 to June 1983 and October 1993 to April 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in May 2020, at which time the issues currently before the Board were remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for appellate review. The issues of entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the right and left upper and lower extremities were also remanded by the Board in May 2020. However, in an August 2020 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the right and left upper and lower extremities. There is no indication from the record that the Veteran has disagreed with the ratings or effective dates assigned in that decision. Therefore, that decision constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal and the Board has limited its consideration accordingly. Service Connection Bilateral Pes Planus In the May 2020 remand, the Board directed that a VA medical opinion be obtained to determine whether the Veteran's pes planus is at least as likely as not proximately due to service-connected disability, to include the Veteran's service-connected knee disabilities. A review of the record shows that the directed addendum VA medical opinion was obtained in July 2020. The Board finds that the medical opinion provided at that time is not adequate. In this regard, for the claimed bilateral pes planus, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral pes planus was less likely as not caused by his service-connected disabilities. However, the VA examiner did not address whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities aggravated his bilateral pes planus. Therefore, the Board finds that the development conducted does not adequately comply with the May 2020 Board remand directives. Compliance with a remand is not discretionary, and failure to comply with the terms of a remand necessitates a remand for corrective action. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Therefore, the Board finds that an addendum opinion should be obtained in order to adequately address the question of aggravation. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Forward the claims file to the VA examiner who provided the August 2020 medical opinion for an addendum opinion addressing the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed bilateral pes planus. The examiner must review the claims file, and note that review in the report. Based on a review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently present bilateral pes planus was caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. If the examiner who conducted the August 2020 VA examination is not available, the claims file should be forwarded to another VA examiner with the appropriate expertise to provide the requested medical opinions. A new examination of the Veteran should only be conducted if deemed necessary by the examiner provided the requested medical opinions. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Confirm that all medical opinions provided comport with this remand, and undertake any other development determined to be warranted. 4. Then, readjudicate the appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umez-Eronini, 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.