Citation Nr: 21032179 Decision Date: 05/26/21 Archive Date: 05/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-04 459 DATE: May 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for deformity of the distal end of the second metatarsal bone, right foot is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1965 to January 1968. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned in February 2019 at the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. In December 2019, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) granted entitlement to a 30 percent disability rating, but no higher, for deformity of the distal end of the second metatarsal bone, right foot. This decision, in pertinent part, was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In January 2021, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) vacating the portion of the Board's decision that denied entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for deformity of the distal end of the second metatarsal bone, right foot and remanding the issue to the Board. This issue has now returned to the Board for further review; however, the issues remanded by the Board in December 2019 have not yet returned to the Board and will be addressed in a later decision, if appropriate. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for deformity of the distal end of the second metatarsal bone, right foot is remanded. The 2021 JMPR states that the outstanding VA treatment records identified by the Veteran during his 2019 Board hearing may be pertinent to the issue of whether a rating in excess of 30 percent is warranted for the Veteran's deformity of the distal end of the second metatarsal bone, right foot (right foot disability). To the extent that treatment records from the Ann Arbor VAMC have been associated with the claims file since December 2019, the Board notes that a supplemental statement of the case has not been issued addressing these treatment records. Additionally, the Veteran's last examination of his foot condition was in June 2015. Since that time, the Veteran has reported worsening of his right foot disability. Specifically, the Veteran has reported numbness in his right foot that requires him to use his cane to operate the pedals of his vehicle. He also reported that amputation of his right foot has been suggested. See Hearing Transcript, p.6. In light of the evidence of potential worsening of the Veteran's condition, a remand is warranted to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected right foot disability. See Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate any outstanding VA treatment records related to the Veteran's right foot disability since April 1, 2013 with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected right foot disability. The claims file must be made available to the examiner. Any indicated diagnostic tests and studies must be accomplished. All pertinent symptomatology and findings should be reported. The examiner is asked to specifically discuss whether the Veteran suffers from loss of use of the right foot. The term "loss of use of a hand or foot" is defined by VA regulation as existing when "no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation stump at the site of election below the elbow or knee with the use of a suitable prosthetic appliance." 38 C.F.R. § 3.350 (a)(2)(i). The examiner must provide a detailed rationale for all opinions rendered. If the examiner cannot provide the requested information without resort to speculation, it must be so stated with reasons why, and if an additional clinical evaluation is necessary to render the requested information, then that opportunity should be made available. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board P.M. Johnson, 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.