Citation Nr: 22014709 Decision Date: 03/14/22 Archive Date: 03/14/22 DOCKET NO. 19-16 167 DATE: March 14, 2022 REMANDED The issues of entitlement to service connection for bilateral acquired pes planus with arthritis and bilateral foot hammer toes are remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1986 to July 1989 and from December 2003 to June 2005. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) via videoconference in October 2021 and a transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran contends that he has bilateral foot disabilities that were incurred during service, to include bilateral pes planus and hammertoes. Available treatment records show current diagnoses to include pes planus and hammertoes, bilaterally, as well as left foot tarsal tunnel syndrome. See, e.g., April 2017 Private Treatment Notes. The record also supports in-service incurrence, as the Veteran has provided competent testimony that he had foot pain and wore boots that were too small and without insoles or arch support in service. Additionally, an October 2003 retention examination report for the National Guard documented a finding of hammertoe in the left foot. Given the foregoing, the Board finds that an examination and medical opinion are needed to determine whether any of the Veteran's current foot disabilities are related to his service. On remand, efforts should be made to obtain any outstanding service treatment records, as the Veteran alleged in a December 2021 statement that a form documenting his reports of foot pain at separation is not of record. Additionally, relevant outstanding treatment records should be obtained, if any. 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 disabilities. See Smith v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 332, 338-39 (2020). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request from official sources the Veteran's complete service treatment and personnel records from both periods of active duty service (July 1986 to July 1989, and December 2003 to June 2005) and National Guard service. 2. Obtain all outstanding relevant treatment records, VA or private, if any. 3. Then schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate VA clinician to provide a medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's bilateral foot disabilities. The entire claims file should be made available to and be reviewed by the clinician in conjunction with this request. Thereafter, the clinician should address the following: (a.) Please identify all foot disabilities to specifically include flat feet/pes planus, hammertoes, and tarsal tunnel syndrome. 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) above, please accept as valid the Veteran's statements that: 1) he experienced bilateral foot pain in service; 2) he wore boots that were too small in service and without insoles or arch support; 3) his foot pain was gradual and progressive but became acute during his second period of active service from December 2003 to June 2005; and 4) he advised the separation examiner in 2005 of his foot pain; 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). (d.) In offering any opinion, the clinician should consider medical and lay evidence dated both prior to and since the filing of the claim. (e.) 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 A. Fagan 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.