Citation Nr: 25005164 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 17-47 299 DATE: April 16, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1976 to November 1979, from January 2003 to December 2003, from October 2006 to September 2008, and from November 2008 to February 2013. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the Board in January 2021. A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. In a November 2022 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for aggravation of preexisting bilateral flat feet. The Veteran appealed the denial of benefits to the Unites States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an October 2023 Order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) vacating the November 2022 decision and remanding the matter for readjudication. Entitlement to service connection for aggravation of preexisting bilateral flat feet was again denied in a March 2024 Board decision. The denial of benefits was appealed to the Court. In a December 2024 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) vacating the March 2024 decision and remanded the matter for readjudication. This case has been advanced on the docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet is remanded. The Board is not able to make a fully informed decision regarding the issue of entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet. Pursuant to the terms of the JMR, the Board finds that remand is warranted to obtain an opinion that addresses potentially favorable and conflicting evidence. Asymptomatic pes planus was noted on the July 1976 entrance Report of Medical Examination; however, the June 1979 separation Report of Medical Examination does not identify any problems or defects involving the feet. Further, during an August 2002 retention Report of Medical Examination, the examiner found that the Veteran had normal feet with a normal arch. However, when the Veteran presented with complaints of lower leg pain in February 2003, the clinician noted the Veteran had flat feet. Due to this conflicting information, the Board finds that remand is warranted for an addendum opinion. The examiner is asked to reconcile the conflicting information and opine whether bilateral flat feet clearly and unmistakably existed prior to the Veteran's periods of active service, to include January 2003 to December 2003, October 2006 to September 2008, and November 2008 to February 2013. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion regarding the nature and etiology of bilateral flat feet. The need for an in-person examination is left to the discretion of the examiner. The examiner should review the claims file and address the following: (a.) Whether the bilateral flat feet clearly and unmistakably (undebatable) preexisted the Veteran's period of service from January 2003 to December 2003. If the examiner finds it did clearly and unmistakably preexist service January 2003 to December 2003, the examiner must opine whether it was clearly and unmistakably not aggravated by service. (b.) Whether the bilateral flat feet clearly and unmistakably (undebatable) preexisted the Veteran's period of service from October 2006 to September 2008. If the examiner finds it did clearly and unmistakably preexist service from October 2006 to September 2008, the examiner must opine whether it was clearly and unmistakably not aggravated by service. In formulating an opinion, the examiner must address the August 2002 retention Report of Medical Examination. (c.) Whether the bilateral flat feet clearly and unmistakably (undebatable) preexisted the Veteran's period of service from November 2008 to February 2013. If the examiner finds it did clearly and unmistakably preexist service from November 2008 to February 2013, the examiner must opine whether it was clearly and unmistakably not aggravated by service. The examiner must specifically address the August 2002 retention Report of Medical History and the February 2003 record of medical care in formulating any opinion. The examiner should also consider the lay statements provided by the Veteran and W.B.G. that the Veteran suffered from foot pain while serving on active duty between November 2008 and February 2013. See Correspondence received in September 2017. A complete rationale must be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, he or she must explain why this is so. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and that his reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinions. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. (d.) If the examiner finds that bilateral flat feet did not clearly and unmistakably preexist any period of active service (January 2003 to December 2003, October 2006 to September 2008, or November 2008 to February 2013), the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, i.e., nearly equal probability) that the Veteran's bilateral flat feet were incurred during or are otherwise related to that period of active service. The examiner should also consider the lay statements provided by the Veteran and W.B.G. that the Veteran suffered from foot pain while serving on active duty between November 2008 and February 2013. See Correspondence received in September 2017. A complete rationale must be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, he or she must explain why this is so. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and that his reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinions. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B Jackson, M. 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.