FLATFOOT BILATERAL ACQUIRED

JIMMY L. BARDIN · 2026 · Case ID: A26010637

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran served from November 2001 to November 2005. The Veteran sought service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, left and right shoulder disorders, residuals of a right hand second MCP fracture, left and right knee disorders, left and right arm disorders, and residuals of an injury to the front teeth and gums. The Veteran argued these conditions were due to a specific fall from a gun tower and generally due to military wear and tear. The Board found the Veteran's testimony regarding continuous symptomatology to be competent and credible, noting no contradictory clinical evidence. The Board also found the VA examinations from November and December 2018 to be inadequate as they did not discuss the documented fall and provided negative etiological opinions for some conditions without addressing the Veteran's claims. The Board concluded that the evidence was in approximate balance, affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, service connection for all claimed conditions was granted. However, the Board remanded claims for celiac disease and residuals of asbestos exposure due to pre-decisional duty to assist errors, specifically the failure to afford the Veteran examinations for these conditions.

Rationale

Competent and credible lay testimony; No contradictory clinical evidence; Benefit of the doubt afforded

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

200806-108557

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26010637
Decision Date: 02/04/26 Archive Date: 02/04/26

DOCKET NO. 200806-108557
DATE: February 4, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right hand second MCP fracture is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a right arm disorder is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a left arm disorder is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to the front teeth and gums is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder is granted.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for celiac disease is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of asbestos exposure is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's: bilateral plantar fasciitis; left shoulder disorder; right shoulder disorder; residuals of a right hand second MCP fracture; left knee disorder; right arm disorder; right knee disorder; left arm disorder; residuals of an injury to the front teeth and gums; and right shoulder disorder are as likely as not related to his active-duty service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right hand second MCP fracture have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right arm disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

8. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left arm disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

9. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to the front teeth and gums have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

10. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active-duty service from November 2001 to November 2005.

In the August 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing Submission docket.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active-duty service from November 2001 to November 2005.

In the August 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing Submission docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran [or representative] with, or within 90 days from the date of their hearing 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the RO issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

The Veteran provided testimony at a Board hearing in May 2024. A transcript of the hearing is of record.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

However, because the Board is remanding the claims for service connection for celiac disease and asbestos exposure, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

Service Connection

The law provides that service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

Generally, establishing service connection requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999).

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis

2. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder

3. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder

4. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right hand second MCP fracture

5. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder

6. Entitlement to service connection for a right arm disorder

7. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder

8. Entitlement to service connection for a left arm disorder

9. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to the front teeth and gums

10. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder

The Veteran seeks service connection for: bilateral plantar fasciitis; left shoulder disorder; right shoulder disorder; residuals of a right hand second MCP fracture; left knee disorder; right arm disorder; right knee disorder; left arm disorder; residuals of an injury to the front teeth and gums; and right shoulder disorder. He argues that these disorders were specifically due to a fall from a gun tower in which he hit a roof on the way down, and generally due to normal wear and tear associated with his military duties. After a review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the claims should be granted.

The Veteran's service treatment records document his fall and the injuries suffered from it. Of note, the injuries to his gums and teeth are noted, as well as general pain on the parts of the body claimed above. For his part, the Veteran has maintained that his symptoms have persisted since his fall.

Post-service, the Veteran's claimed disorders show treatment and diagnoses for the claimed disorders beginning several years after separation. There is no clinical evidence which contradicts the Veteran's statements. Moreover, the
to a fall from a gun tower in which he hit a roof on the way down, and generally due to normal wear and tear associated with his military duties. After a review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the claims should be granted.

Post-service, the Veteran's claimed disorders show treatment and diagnoses for the claimed disorders beginning several years after separation. There is no clinical evidence which contradicts the Veteran's statements. Moreover, the statements solely describe the Veteran's observation of his symptoms and are not etiological opinions, for which the Veteran would be unqualified as a lay person to provide. Thus, the Board considers them to be both competent and credible.

The Board notes the examinations from November 2018 and December 2018. These examinations contained negative etiological opinions for the Veteran's: tooth and gum disorder; shoulder disorders; arm disorders; and right hand disorder. The examiner found no current disorder of the tooth and gums, although the Veteran has claimed residual symptoms which are documented in medical records. The remaining disorders were found not to be related to his conceded Toxic Risk Exposure Activities (TERA) but there was no discussion of his documented fall. As such, the Board finds all these examinations and opinions to be inadequate. As such, the examinations and opinions of record will not be considered as carrying substantial probative weight.

The Veteran has provided a competent and credible account of his continuous symptomatology. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1377. He reports generally consistent manifestations of those symptoms, including solely for the purpose of seeking medical care and treatment for her claimed disabilities. These factors together make the Veteran's account of symptomatology competent, credible and highly probative. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (VA must consider lay evidence and give it the weight it concludes is appropriate).

The Board has found the Veteran's statements about his chronic symptoms to be both competent and credible. There is no adequate medical evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the Board concludes that the positive and negative evidence stand in at least approximate balance (equipoise) and service connection for: bilateral plantar fasciitis; left shoulder disorder; right shoulder disorder; residuals of a right hand second MCP fracture; left knee disorder; right arm disorder; right knee disorder; left arm disorder; residuals of an injury to the front teeth and gums; and right shoulder disorder are warranted. The Veteran's claims are granted.

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for celiac disease is remanded.

2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of asbestos exposure is remanded.

The Veteran seeks service connection for celiac disease and asbestos exposure residuals. After a review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the claims must be remanded to correct pre-decisional duty to assist errors.

At issue is the failure to afford the Veteran examinations for his claimed disorders. The threshold for finding a link between a current disability and service so as to require medical examination is low. Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006). Given his noted TERA and provided statements, the Board finds that examinations should have been afforded. The failure to do so is a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for new examinations, with an appropriate clinician, to determine the nature, extent, onset, and etiology of his celiac disease and asbestos exposure residuals.

The complete claims file should be made available to the examiner(s). The examiner(s) should provide opinions as to whether it is at least as likely as not that his celiac disease and asbestos exposure residuals are etiologically related to the Veteran's period of service, including via his conceded TERA, or to another diagnosed disorder, including via any medications taken to treat symptoms of any service connected disability.

All opinions should be accompanied by adequate reasons and bases. If the examiner(s) cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to mere speculation, they should provide a complete explanation stating why this is so.

The examiner(s) is reminded that the secondary service connection opinions must discuss both causation and aggravation (
disease and asbestos exposure residuals.

The examiner(s) is reminded that the secondary service connection opinions must discuss both causation and aggravation (beyond a natural course) separately.

Any provided opinion must include a discussion of the Veteran's lay statements.

In so doing, the examiner(s) should explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that they have exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s).

JIMMY L. BARDIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Hernan, Quincy

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer