Citation Nr: 21031398 Decision Date: 05/21/21 Archive Date: 05/21/21 DOCKET NO. 08-22 905 DATE: May 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1984 to February 1987 and January 1991 to October 1991, with additional service in the National Guard. He filed his claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in San Juan, Puerto Rico. This appeal was previously before the Board in November 2020 when it was remanded to obtain a new VA medical opinion that discusses whether the Veteran's bilateral flat feet increased in severity during service, and, if so, whether the increase in severity was clearly and unmistakably (undebatable) due to the natural progress of the disease. The record indicates that the Veteran was afforded a new VA foot conditions including flatfoot (pes planus) examination in December 2020. The Board acknowledges that the examiner provided a negative etiology opinion for secondary service connection based on aggravation for a bilateral flatfoot condition. The rationale for the flatfoot condition specifically noted there is no evidence of a leg length discrepancy as reported by the Veteran in an October 2013 VA treatment record. However, the Board notes a March 2007 VA podiatry record noted the Veteran's left leg is longer than his right. As medical clarification and a clearer rationale are needed, a remand for an addendum opinion is warranted. See Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1, 12 (2001). The examiner also provided a negative etiology opinion for direct service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis. The rationale noted that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) were silent for plantar fasciitis and do not show clinical evidence of treatment, medical follow-up, or signs or symptoms associated with plantar fasciitis. The Board finds this rationale inadequate, and a clarification is required. The examiner did not address the Veteran's report of foot trouble in his September 1991 Report of Medical History for separation. Again, remand for an addendum opinion is warranted. See Bowling, supra. In addition, a thorough review of the record reveals multiple medical records that are not in English and need to be translated into English before the claims on appeal are adjudicated by the Board. For cases originating from the VA RO in San Juan, a remand instruction may be included for the translation of documents if the case is being remanded to the San Juan RO for other reasons. On remand, these documents should be translated into English by official means. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Review the entire claims file for any document in Spanish and translate those documents into English by official means. A copy of the translated documents must be associated with the claims file. Documents needing translation include: 1) CAPRI records received February 22, 2021, pages 86-89, 502-503, 536-537, and 562-563; 2) CAPRI records received December 3, 2020, pages 73-75, 486-487, 520, 546, and 758; 3) CAPRI records received August 10, 2020, pages 67-70; 4) CAPRI records received July 30, 2020, pages 60-63, and 742; 5) CAPRI records received July 14, 2020, pages 57-60, 510, and 703; 6) CAPRI records received May 18, 2020, pages 69-72; 7) Private treatment records received April 26, 2012, pages 1-12; 8) Private treatment records received April 6, 2012, page 11; 9) Private medical records received May 5, 2007, pages 8-9, 23-24, 28, and 43; and 10) marriage license received April 7, 2010. 2. Return the matter to the examiner who issued the December 2020 medical opinion and obtain an addendum to the opinion. If that individual is unavailable, the claims file should be reviewed by a similarly qualified medical professional. The examiner is asked to provide the following opinions: (a) Whether there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the Veteran's bilateral pes planus preexisted service and clearly and unmistakably was NOT aggravated beyond its natural progression during active service. The examiner must address the conflicting medical evidence noted above. (b) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a probability of 50 percent or greater) that the Veteran's bilateral plantar fasciitis manifested in service or is etiologically related to service. The examiner must address the Veteran's report of foot trouble at the time of his September 1991 Report of Medical History for separation. The examiner should note that the term "aggravated by" refers to a chronic or permanent worsening of the underlying condition, as contrasted to mere temporary or intermittent flare-ups of symptoms that resolve and return to the baseline level of disability. If the opinion is that the Veteran's flatfoot condition was aggravated by active service, the examiner should specify, so far as possible, the degree of disability resulting from such aggravation. All opinions must be supported by a complete rationale. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Banks, 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.