Citation Nr: 21031596 Decision Date: 05/24/21 Archive Date: 05/24/21 DOCKET NO. 16-46 349 DATE: May 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral plantar fasciitis, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1992 to June 1996, from August 2004 to November 2004, from May 2009 to May 2010, and from October 2010 to September 2011. He had additional service in the United States Army Reserve. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In January 2019, the Board remanded the case for further development. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral plantar fasciitis, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded. Throughout the appeal, the Veteran has contended that his bilateral plantar fasciitis warrants separate 10 percent evaluations for each foot, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5284, pertaining to foot injuries. The Veteran is currently assigned a 10 percent evaluation for bilateral plantar fasciitis, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5276, pertaining to flat foot. In the January 2019 remand, the Board noted that the Veteran had multiple bilateral foot disabilities documented in the claims file; however, he was only service-connected for bilateral plantar fasciitis. The Board found that no medical professional, to include a July 2014 VA examiner, provided an opinion as to the nature and etiology of any of the diagnosed bilateral foot disorders. The Board remanded the case to obtain a VA examination to determine the nature, etiology, and current severity of all currently diagnosed foot disorders. Thereafter, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2019. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran was service-connected for bilateral plantar fasciitis and limited her examination to that diagnosis. She did not address the Veteran's additional diagnosed bilateral foot disorders as directed in the January 2019 remand directives. Therefore, a remand is required to ensure compliance with the prior remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand order). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected bilateral plantar fasciitis and to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral foot disorders documented within the record. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file. It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should clearly delineate all pathology and symptomatology attributable to the service-connected bilateral plantar fasciitis. If the examiner is unable to distinguish between the symptoms associated with the service-connected bilateral plantar fasciitis with a nonservice-connected disorder, he or she should so state in the report. The examiner should report all signs and symptoms necessary for rating the plantar fasciitis disability. In particular, he or she should indicate whether the Veteran's service-connected bilateral foot disability is best characterized as moderate, moderately severe, or severe. In addition, the examiner should provide the range of motion in degrees of both feet. In so doing, the examiner should test the Veteran's range of motion in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain so in the report. The presence of objective evidence of pain, excess fatigability, incoordination and weakness should also be noted, as should any additional disability (including additional limitation of motion) due to these factors. Further, the VA examiner should comment as to whether range of motion measurements for active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and/or nonweight-bearing can be estimated for the other VA examinations conducted during the appeal period. If the examiner is unable to provide a retrospective opinion as to these specific range of motion findings, he or she should clearly explain so in the report. The examiner is also requested to identify all current bilateral foot disorders. The examiner should specifically address diagnoses of pes planus, hallux limitus, and residuals of left foot ganglion cyst removal. For each diagnosis identified, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the disorder manifested in or is otherwise causally or etiologically related to the Veteran's military service. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Osegueda, 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.