Citation Nr: 23014265 Decision Date: 03/09/23 Archive Date: 03/09/23 DOCKET NO. 18-50 918 DATE: March 9, 2023 REMAND The issue of service connection for bilateral pes planus is remanded. The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from June 2002 to July 2006. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A copy of the transcript is associated with the claims file. The Board remanded this matter in April 2022, and the Veteran's then-pending claim of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In November 2022, the RO granted service connection for PTSD. This grant of service connection is a full award of the benefit sought on appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). REASONS FOR REMAND The issue of service connection for bilateral pes planus is remanded. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE DECISION REVIEW OPERATIONS CENTER (DROC) ADJUDICATOR: This is a remand to fulfill VA's duty to assist and obtain an addendum medical opinion to determine whether the Veteran's bilateral pes planus that existed prior to service was aggravated by his military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(1). At the Veteran's August 2001 enlistment examination, the examiner noted mild, asymptomatic pes planus. The Veteran contends that his bilateral pes planus was caused or aggravated (worsened) by active service. Through counsel, he alleged that his pes planus worsened when he wore "double boots" for 45 days straight when wearing a "mission oriented protective posture" or "MOPP" suit (i.e., protective gear worn by the U.S. military services in a toxic or potentially toxic environment). The Board remanded the claim in April 2022 to obtain service treatment records (STRs) and relevant private treatment records. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2022. The VA examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's bilateral pes planus was caused by his active service because the disability pre-existed service. However, the VA examiner did not provide an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's disability was aggravated by his active service. THE REMAND DIRECTIVES FOLLOW. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from the appropriate clinician to determine whether the Veteran's pre-existing bilateral pes planus was aggravated by or during service. The entire claims file, including a copy of this Remand, must be made available to, and reviewed by the VA examiner. The examiner must address the following QUESTION: Question: Was the Veteran's pre-existing bilateral pes planus aggravated (i.e., worsened to any degree) by or during service? A thorough explanation must be provided for the opinion. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to speculation, s/he should expressly indicate this and fully explain why the opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. The electronic claims file, including a copy of this Remand, must be made available to, and be reviewed by, the VA examiner. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. The examiner must review the record as found in the electronic claims file. However, the record in substance indicates the following: The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from June 2002 to July 2006. The Veteran's August 28, 2001 enlistment examination notes he had mild, asymptomatic bilateral pes planus. The examination noted no other foot problems. The Veteran's June 3, 2006 separation examination indicated no foot symptoms. At an August 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran's representative alleged that the Veteran wore "double boots" for 45 consecutive days when he was in a MOPP suit during active service. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2022. He told the examiner his bilateral foot pain began in 2006 and has since worsened. He denied any foot injuries. He has not sought medical treatment for his foot pain. 3. After completion of the above and any other appropriate development deemed necessary, readjudicate the issue on appeal, to include any additional evidence. If the determination remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished with a Supplemental Statement of the Case. An appropriate amount of time should then be allowed for a response before the record is returned to the Board for further review. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Paula Brooks The Board's action is binding only in this case. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.