Citation Nr: 25005083 Decision Date: 04/15/25 Archive Date: 04/15/25 DOCKET NO. 17-36 079 DATE: April 15, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had extensive service with the United States Army Reserve, including periods of active duty with the United States Army from August 1979 to August1983, September 2008 to September 2011, September 2012 to September 2012, and January 2013 to September 2013. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 Rating Decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). On multiple occasions, this matter has been remanded to include most recently in May 2023. Regrettably, as to the issue on appeal, the Board concluded that there had not been substantial compliance with its prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Therefore, the Veteran's claim was remanded to obtain an addendum VA opinion which fully considered favorable evidence of chronic pain dating back to active service and analyzed a possible correlation between the Veteran's service-connected lower extremity conditions and his left foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis, to include as due to aggravation. In March 2024, the Board issued a Decision which denied the Veteran's claim. Soon thereafter, the Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Pursuant to a January 2025 Joint Motion for Remand, CAVC vacated and remanded the March 2024 Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) decision that denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a left foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis. Therefore, consistent with the January 2025 CVAC decision, this matter is remanded to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the appellant's claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2020). Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis is remanded. Although the further delay entailed by remand is regrettable, current adjudication of the Veteran's claims would be premature. Undertaking additional development prior to a Board decision is the only way to ensure compliance with the duty to assist, as required. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2020). The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a left foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis. In January 2025, CAVC reviewed the Board's March 2024 decision and determined that it failed to ensure substantial compliance with the May 2023 remand order. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (recognizing that a remand order confers on the veteran a right to compliance with the terms of the remand). In relevant part, the Board's prior decision, dated May 2023, remanded the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis. Of note, its remand instructions provided the following directions: "Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's claimed left foot condition, to include plantar fasciitis, is at least as likely as not related to his active service duties (e.g., physical training, running, etc.), and/or whether the condition is proximately due to or aggravated beyond its natural progression by a service-connected disability. In providing this opinion, the clinician must address the Veteran's lay contentions that his left foot pain began during his active service in approximately 2011 and continued thereafter. Regarding a possible secondary causal linkage, the clinician is advised that the term "aggravation in" refers to any incremental increase in disability of the left foot plantar fasciitis resulting from the Veteran's other service-connected lower extremity conditions (e.g., knees, right foot, left ankle, etc.)." Despite the above, the subsequent VA examination report, dated January 2024, failed to provide an opinion that substantially complied with the May 2023 Board remand directives. In particular, the VA examiner neither adequately addressed whether the Veteran's service-connected lower extremity conditions caused or aggravated his left foot disability, nor did it adequately address favorable evidence of chronic pain dating back to active service. Further, the VA examiner's discussion of the possibility of secondary service connection lacked adequate consideration of whether the Veteran's other service-connected lower extremity conditions could have caused or aggravated his left foot plantar fasciitis disability. Additionally, the examiner's opinion regarding secondary service connection only addressed the Veteran's right foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis, tendinosis, and heel spur, and resolved that it is less likely than not that the left foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis, is causally related to his service-connected right foot disabilities. No opinion was offered as to a possible secondary causal linkage between the Veteran's service-connected left knee degenerative joint disease, his right knee degenerative joint disease, or his left ankle lateral collateral ligament sprain and impingement with arthritis, and his left foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis. Finally, the VA examiner failed to adequately address the Veteran's contention that his left foot pain began during active service in approximately 2011, continued post-separation, and included the rendering of a formal diagnosis of a left foot disability in 2018. Similarly, no analysis, discussion, or consideration was given to the Veteran's hearing testimony regarding persistent foot pain, with a current diagnosis rendered in 2018, and documentation of complaints of impaired walking due to pain despite use of orthotic inserts, steroid injections, and periodic use of a cane to manage shooting pain with giving out. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Board's March 2024 Decision was premature as the updated VA opinion provided in January 2024 failed to substantially comply with the Board's May 2023 remanded directives. On remand, the Board must ensure that any subsequently obtained VA opinion is adequate and addresses whether the Veteran's service-connected right foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis, tendinosis, and heel spur; left knee degenerative joint disease; right knee degenerative joint disease; or his left ankle lateral collateral ligament sprain and impingement with arthritis caused or aggravated his left foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis; and the considers his lay contentions that his left foot pain began during his active service in approximately 2011 and continued thereafter, in compliance with the May 2023 remand order. Similarly, any such opinion must also be supported by an adequate rationale, including addressing the Appellant's testimony of pain since 2011. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007). Any subsequent Board decision must indicate and reflect that all evidence of record was reexamined, and any other necessary evidence obtained, prior to issuing a timely, well-supported decision in this case." Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 394, 397 (1991). In addition, the Veteran shall be free to submit additional evidence and arguments in support of his claim. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369, 372 (1999). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding whether the Veteran's claimed left foot condition, to include plantar fasciitis, is at least as likely as not related to his active service duties (e.g., physical training, running, etc.), and/or whether the condition is proximately due to OR aggravated beyond its natural progression by a service-connected disability. The examiner should identify any medications the Veteran is taking to treat this condition (including pain medication). If any medications are identified, the examiner should offer an opinion as to the severity of the Veteran's symptoms if he were not in fact taking this medication. If such an opinion cannot be offered without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner should explain in full why this is the case. In providing this opinion, the clinician must address the Veteran's lay contentions that his left foot pain began during his active service in approximately 2011 and continued thereafter. See Board hearing transcript. In addressing secondary causation, the clinician is advised that the term "aggravation" in refers to any incremental increase in disability of the left foot plantar fasciitis resulting from the Veteran's other service- connected lower extremity conditions (e.g., knees, right foot, left ankle, etc.). If another examination or tele-medicine interview is necessary to provide the requested opinions, it should be arranged. 2. Following adequate completion of the foregoing, the RO should review the record and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the claim remains denied, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental Statement of the Case, afford the Veteran and his 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 Whitaker, Nakiya E. 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.