Citation Nr: 21031984 Decision Date: 05/25/21 Archive Date: 05/25/21 DOCKET NO. 10-11 148 DATE: May 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from August 2001 to December 2007. This case comes before the Board on appeal of a March 2008 rating decision. A live videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) was scheduled for May 2019; however, the Veteran neither appeared nor submitted a request for postponement. As such, the hearing is deemed withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (d). Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2019). Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disability is remanded. Here, the Veteran contends that his bilateral ankle disability was incurred during active duty service. Based on the evidence, a remand is necessary. Specifically, in the June 2016 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis of the bilateral ankles. The Veteran reported that he injured both ankles in service, which was treated with bed rest and over-the-counter medication. He added that he suffered from pain, swelling, and numbness in both ankles after strenuous activities such as hiking or jogging. On examination, the Veteran's ankles manifested with normal range of motion (ROM) without pain or functional impairment. The physician, Dr. M.T., opined that the Veteran's bilateral ankle disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by an injury during active duty service. The physician reasoned that there were no service treatment records (STRs) found related to a bilateral ankle injury. The physician specifically stated that there was no record related to "a lateral inversion of the right foot during a basketball game." Dr. M.T. stated that the only foot condition the Veteran was treated for in service was athlete foot. Dr. M.T. added that the Veteran did not report any foot trouble or ankle issues on his report of medical history on separation. The physician noted that there were no post service treatments found related to the claimed condition and there were no symptoms or pathology found in both ankles on the examination. See July 2016 medical opinion. The Board finds Dr. M.T.'s opinion to be inadequate and thus of little probative value. At the outset, Dr. M.T. failed to account for the Veteran's statements regarding his bilateral ankle condition during service. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report on lay observable symptomatology. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(2). Moreover, Dr. M.T. stated that there was no evidence of a right foot inversion during service; however, a review of the record shows that the Veteran complained of and was treated for lateral inversion of the right foot during a basketball game. The Veteran had lateral swelling of the foot, along with color changes of the foot over a week. The Veteran was assessed with a grade 1 strain. Furthermore, in the December 2007 VA examination, the Veteran complained of pain and stiffness of his bilateral ankles that had its onset during service. Although the Veteran had full ROM and no signs of functional impairment on examination, he was assessed with bilateral acute ankle tendonitis. As the physician failed to account for the pertinent evidence, the medical opinion is inadequate. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007); see also Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Additionally, there are several statements from the Veteran's fellow servicemen regarding ankle and leg injuries he suffered during service, which should be taken into consideration. Given the foregoing, a remand is necessary to determine the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral ankle disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all relevant outstanding VA treatment records, and any private treatment records identified by the Veteran. All records and/or responses received should be associated with the claims file. 2. After all outstanding treatment records have been associated with the claims file, obtain a VA addendum medical opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral ankle disability. If an opinion cannot be obtained without an examination, then a VA examination should be afforded to the Veteran. The record, including a copy of this remand, must be made available and reviewed by the examiner. The VA examiner should address the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's bilateral ankle disability had its onset during service or is otherwise causally related to any event or circumstance of the Veteran's service. The examiner is reminded that the term "as likely as not" does not mean "within the realm of medical possibility," but rather that the evidence of record is so evenly divided that, in the examiner's expert opinion, it is as medically sound to find in favor of the proposition as against it. 3. The examiner should cite to the pertinent medical and competent lay evidence of record and explain the rationale for all opinions given. If after consideration of all pertinent factors it remains that the opinion sought cannot be given without resort to speculation, it should be so stated, and the provider must (to comply with governing legal guidelines) explain why the opinion sought cannot be offered without resort to speculation. 4. After undertaking any additional development deemed necessary, the AOJ must readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the claims remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the requisite opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umo, 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.