Citation Nr: 21042563 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-52 091 DATE: July 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral pes planus is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active service with the United States Navy from May 1999 to July 2011. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2019, the Board issued a decision which denied entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral pes planus. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In July 2020, the Court filed a Memorandum Decision. The Court found that the Board erred in failing to provide an adequate statement of the reasons or bases for denying a rating in excess of 30 percent for pes planus disability. In particular, the Board failed to address the favorable evidence that the Veteran's orthotics did not relieve symptoms. Additionally, the VA did not satisfy its duty to assist in obtaining relevant private treatment records. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral pes planus is remanded. Although further delay is regrettable, a remand is necessary for the following development. The Court directed the Board to obtain missing private treatment records. The Board notes that the Veteran had ongoing treatment at a podiatry clinic. On remand the RO should make appropriate efforts to ensure that all pertinent private treatment records are associated with the claims file. The Board also finds that a new VA examination is called for. In particular, the May 2019 Foot Conditions, including Flatfoot (Pes Planus) Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) did not provide any response as to whether the Veteran had marked deformity of her feet. Additionally, no response was supplied as to whether the Veteran had marked pronation. Therefore, the Board finds that the May 2019 VA examination is inadequate and remands the claim for an adequate VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Update VA and private treatment records. Request the Veteran to provide authorization for release of all identified private medical records to VA. In particular, the Veteran reported private treatment at a podiatry clinic. If any records identified cannot be obtained, the Veteran and her representative should be notified of this in writing, to include all efforts taken by VA to attempt to obtain any such records. The Veteran is also to be asked to provide any relevant records that may be in her possession. 2. After obtaining any outstanding records, schedule the Veteran for a new VA examination with an appropriate clinician, to assess the present nature and severity of her bilateral pes planus. The Veteran's claims file and a copy of this remand should be provided to the examiner and the examination report should reflect that these items were reviewed. All necessary tests and studies, to include X-rays and range of motion studies, should be completed, and all clinical findings reported in detail. (a.) The examiner is requested to describe all manifestations and symptoms of the bilateral pes planus disability, as well as information required for rating purposes. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary, he or she should be directed to clearly explain why that is so. (Continued on the next page) (a.) A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered. If an opinion cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what additional evidence, if any, would allow for a more definitive opinion. 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the AOJ should review the record, perform any necessary development, and readjudicate the claims on appeal. If the appeal is denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), afford the Veteran and her representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Associate Counsel, C. Parnell 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.