Citation Nr: 22018121 Decision Date: 03/28/22 Archive Date: 03/28/22 DOCKET NO. 16-16 717 DATE: March 28, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bunion hallux limitus disorder of the right foot is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bunion hallux limitus disorder of the left foot is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability, other than bunion hallux limitus disorder, (also claimed as metatarsal foot condition and metatarsalgia/benign neoplasm), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the U.S. Army from March 1977 to March 1982. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2015 rating decision by an agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in March 2019. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. In December 2021 correspondence, the Veteran was informed that the VLJ who presided over the March 2019 hearing was no longer employed by the Board and was advised of the opportunity to testify at another hearing under 38 C.F.R. § 20.700. The Veteran did not respond within 30 days from the date of the letter, and so it is presumed that no additional hearing is desired. In December 2015 and July 2019, the Board remanded these matters for further evidentiary development. A remand by the Board confers upon the appellant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Where the remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance. In its most recent July 2019 remand, the Board directed that the AOJ obtain VA medical nexus opinions to determine whether the claimed foot disabilities are at least as likely as not caused or aggravated by active service. Pursuant to the Board's July 2019 remand, a VA medical nexus opinion was obtained in January 2020. If VA provides an examination that examination must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). In rendering a negative opinion, the VA examiner reported that service treatment records reflect that the Veteran only had a medical evaluation in 1977 for reduction of plantar callosities, while the first noted complaints of right foot pain and bunion was in 2004. The VA examiner stated that there is no available medical documentation to support that the medical evaluation for reduction of plantar callosities in 1977 is related to the 2004 bunionectomy surgery. While the VA examination report noted the Veteran's lay statements of bilateral foot pain since service, such was not addressed by the VA examiner in her opinion. The VA examiner also did not address a notation of foot trouble at the Veteran's separation examination or a July 2014 opinion by the Veteran's treating podiatrist that raises the possibility of a positive nexus to active service. Therefore, the opinion is inadequate, and another remand is warranted to obtain a new VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed foot disabilities. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to ascertain the nature and etiology of the claimed foot disabilities; the claims folder must be reviewed in conjunction with the examination. The examiner must identify any current foot disabilities. For each diagnosed disability, the examiner must opine as to whether such is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) caused or aggravated by service. A full and complete rationale is required for all opinions expressed. The lay statements and medical evidence discussed above must be addressed. 2. Then, readjudicate the remanded issues. If the benefits sought remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. The case should then be returned to the Board for appellate review if otherwise in order. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G.A. Ong, 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.