Citation Nr: 21027587 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 15-10 165A DATE: May 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder other than bilateral plantar fasciitis, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1975 to July 1976. As noted in the Board's June 2020 remand, following an August 2018 statement of the case that denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for alcoholism and drug dependence; hypertension; and amnesia, he perfected an appeal as to those issues by filing a VA Form 9 in September 2018, and he requested a video conference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. Although he was given the opportunity to offer testimony as to these issues during the February 2020 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (which was scheduled to discuss a different matter), the Veteran indicated that he was not prepared to do so at that time and would prefer to wait until they were independently scheduled. The Veteran is still awaiting his requested Board hearing on these issues; as such, they will not be addressed herein. With respect to the Veteran's service-connection claim for a bilateral foot disability, unfortunately, another remand is necessary for the reasons discussed below. As noted in the June 2020 remand, the Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disorders as a result of his military service. During his September 2018 hearing, the Veteran reported that he hurt his feet multiple times by stepping into holes during service. He stated that he was given over-the-counter pain medication to treat his pain, but that it would always come back. The Veteran also testified that, as a result of his duties as an infantryman, he performed a lot of walking and marching in boots, including walking twenty-five miles overnight sometimes. He also stated that, although he reported his foot pain to his superiors, he did not go to sick call out of concern that he would be considered a wimp by his fellow servicemembers. In the June 2020 remand, the Board directed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine whether any bilateral foot disorder present since February 2014 had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, his active duty service, to specifically include his reports of repeatedly falling into holes, as well as walking and marching in boots. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2020, and the examiner noted diagnoses of pes planus, metatarsalgia, hallux valgus, hallux rigidus, plantar fasciitis, and degenerative arthritis. Despite each of these diagnoses, the examiner offered an opinion pertaining only to the Veteran's currently-diagnosed plantar fasciitis, and no other mention was made of the other diagnoses of record. In a November 2020 rating decision, the AOJ awarded service connection for "a bilateral foot disorder, to include plantar fasciitis," but did not actually discuss whether service-connection for any disability other than plantar fasciitis was warranted. Notably, the Codesheet upon which all of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities are listed, simply notes "bilateral plantar fasciitis" as his only service-connected foot disability. The Board observes that at the end of the November 2020 rating decision, the AOJ noted that the service-connection award was only a partial grant of the benefits sought on appeal, and that his appeal would be adjudicated in a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). Crucially however, no SSOC was issued before the appeal was returned to the Board. The Board will remand the newly characterized issue of "entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder other than plantar fasciitis" to the AOJ so that it may complete adjudication of the matter in the first instance. In this connection, given the other diagnoses of record, the June 2020 remand directives, and the holding in Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), an addendum opinion should be obtained on remand, addressing whether any of the other foot diagnoses are related to the Veteran's military service, or his now service-connected plantar fasciitis. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request an addendum opinion from the same examiner who conducted the October 2020 VA examination, or if unavailable, another competent medical professional, to determine whether any of the Veteran's currently-diagnosed bilateral foot disorders other than plantar fasciitis had their onset during, or are otherwise related to, his military service. The need for an additional examination is left to the discretion of the clinician selected to write the addendum opinion. Following a review of the entire record, the examiner should address the following questions: a.) Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that any bilateral foot disorder present since February 2014 (other than plantar fasciitis), to specifically include pes planus, metatarsalgia, hallux valgus, hallux rigidus, and/or degenerative arthritis, had its onset during, or is otherwise related to, his active duty service, to include his reports of repeatedly falling into holes, as well as walking and marching in boots? b.) Is it at least as likely as not that any bilateral foot disorder (other than plantar fasciitis), to include pes planus, metatarsalgia, hallux valgus, hallux rigidus and/or degenerative arthritis, was caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected plantar fasciitis? In offering any opinion, the examiner must consider the full record, to include the lay statements regarding in-service and continuity of symptomatology. A clearly-stated rationale for any opinion offered should be provided 2. Thereafter, and after any further development deemed necessary, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board James R. Springer, 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.