Citation Nr: 21041278 Decision Date: 07/08/21 Archive Date: 07/08/21 DOCKET NO. 13-23 718 DATE: July 8, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, other than onychomycosis and tinea pedis, is remanded. THE VETERAN'S CONTENTIONS The Veteran seeks service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, other than onychomycosis and tinea pedis. See April 2021 Appellant's Brief; September 2020 Appellant's Post-Remand Brief; July 2019 Appellant's Brief. He asserts that his feet were painful in service. See April 2017 statement; April 2017 Board hearing transcript, pp. 15, 20. He also reported that, after service, he complained about his feet in 1973, but was told that he did not qualify for medical care at the Veterans' hospital. Id. He testified that his bilateral foot pain caused him to stop working. Id.; p. 19. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1969 to June 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran provided testimony in a hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge on April 5, 2017. A transcript of that hearing is of record. This matter was previously before the Board in October 2017, August 2019, and November 2020. Post-service VA treatment records show diagnoses of flat feet/ pes planus, degenerative joint disease in the feet, neuroma, and Morton's metatarsalgia. See June 2012, November 2012, March 2013 VA treatment records. A VA examination was provided in March 2019 and addendum VA opinions were provided in January 2020, and December 2020. The March 2019 and January 2020 VA clinicians found no diagnoses of pes planus/ flat feet, neuroma, or Morton's metatarsalgia, or any other foot conditions aside from onychomycosis and tinea pedis. Service connection is in effect for onychomycosis and tinea pedis. The December 2020 VA clinician opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's neuroma had its onset or origin while on active duty service. However, the March 2019, January 2020, or December 2020 VA clinicians did not address the VA treatment records showing diagnoses of flat feet/ pes planus, degenerative joint disease in the feet, and Morton's metatarsalgia. See June 2012, November 2012, March 2013 VA treatment records. Accordingly, a new VA opinion is warranted to specifically acknowledge and consider these diagnoses and whether any of these conditions is related to the Veteran's service. Further, the Veteran reported experiencing bilateral foot pain in service and after service in 1973, and that his bilateral foot pain caused him to stop working. See April 2017 Board Hearing Transcript, pp. 15, 19. In Saunders v. Wilkie, the Federal Circuit held that "pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability." 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the addendum opinion must address whether the Veteran has bilateral foot pain in and of itself, which causes functional impairment and whether a relationship exists between service and any functional impairment. In ordering remand in the instant case, the Board is not making a preliminary formal finding as to the credibility of the Veteran's lay reports. Rather, the Board is merely requesting that the clinician on remand consider the Veteran's own descriptions of the history of his bilateral foot disability. See Smith v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 332, 338-39 (2020). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the Veteran's claims file to an appropriate VA clinician to provide a medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral foot disability. The entire claims file should be made available to and be reviewed by the clinician in conjunction with this request. If the clinician believes that a physical examination should be conducted in order to provide the requested opinion, one should be provided. Thereafter, the clinician should address the following: (a.) Please identify all foot disabilities diagnosed during and since service, to specifically include flat feet/ pes planus, degenerative joint disease in the feet, neuroma, and Morton's metatarsalgia. For the purposes of the opinions being sought by the Board, all diagnoses are relevant, even if they resolved prior to or during the course of the appeal. (b.) Determine whether the Veteran's bilateral foot pain results in functional impairment, even if the criteria for a current diagnosis are not met. (c.) For each condition identified in parts (a) and (b), please state whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the disability had its onset in, was caused by, or is otherwise related to service. For the purpose of providing the opinion(s) requested in parts (a) and (b), please accept as valid the Veteran's statements that: 1) he experienced bilateral foot pain in service; 2) he experienced bilateral foot pain after service in 1973, but was told that he did not qualify for medical care at the Veterans' hospital; and 3) that his bilateral foot pain caused him to stop working; and state whether a nexus between any of the Veteran's foot conditions and service is medically consistent with the information provided by the Veteran. (The Board reminds the Veteran that in asking the examiner to accept the history he provided, the Board is not at this time making an assessment of the credibility of his statements). In offering any opinion, the clinician should consider medical and lay evidence dated both prior to and since the filing of the claim. The clinician should provide a complete rationale for any opinion rendered. If he or she cannot provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why that is so. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Samuelson, 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.