Citation Nr: 22016529 Decision Date: 03/22/22 Archive Date: 03/22/22 DOCKET NO. 17-36 383 DATE: March 22, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability, other than pes planus, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active air service from January 1976 to January 1980. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board, most recently in October 2021, at which time the issue on appeal was remanded for additional development. The other BVA remands were in March 2019 and December 2019.The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. The Board finds that a remand is again necessary for substantial compliance with the December 2019 remand directives. See Stegall V. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Veteran contends that her current right foot disabilities that includes hammer toes, right hallux valgus, and degenerative arthritis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTP) is proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's right ankle injury in service. The Veteran also contends that her pain and numbness in her right foot is due to service. An addendum opinion provided by a VA examiner was associated with the Veteran's claim file in February 2020 in which the examiner failed to address the Veteran's article submission, "Posttraumatic arthritis: definitions and burden of disease." The Veteran's representative argues based upon his research that even injuries which may be viewed as 'trivial' at the time of occurrence can lead to degenerative changes years later. The Veteran's representative further argues that the VA has not addressed this potential theory of service connection. The February 2020 examiner clearly ignored the prior December 2019 Board remand directives to address the article. Further, the December 2021 VA examiner also failed to address the article. Both examiners had a duty to assist the Veteran in developing evidence to substantiate her claim on appeal. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Therefore, a new opinion is needed on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Return the claims file to the VA Medical Center for an addendum medical opinion by a physician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's right foot disability, to include hammer toes, hallux valgus, and degenerative arthritis of MTP joint. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. If a new VA examination is required, then one should be scheduled. Based on a review of the record, examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's right foot disability, to include hammer toes, hallux valgus, and degenerative arthritis of MTP joint, is etiologically related to his active service, to specifically include his right ankle injury. If the right foot disability, to include hammer toes, hallux valgus, and degenerative arthritis of MTP joint, is not shown to be proximately due to or the result of his in-service right ankle injury, then the examiner should, if possible, identify the cause considered more likely and explain why. Additionally, the examiner should thoroughly review and address the Veteran's article submission on posttraumatic arthritis and injuries that may be viewed as trivial which could lead to degenerative changes years later. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Confirm that all medical opinions provided comport with this remand and undertake any other development determined to be warranted. (Continued on the next page) 4. Then, readjudicate the appeal. If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. D. Ware Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ivan Franklin 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.