PLANTAR FASCIITIS

GAYLE STROMMEN · 2026 · Case ID: A26038659

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran, a Navy Veteran who served from June 1980 to June 1984 and May 1987 to May 2003, appeals a June 2021 rating decision. The Veteran sought service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, sinusitis, hypertension, and type II diabetes mellitus. The Board denied service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, finding no current diagnosis or evidence linking it to service. The Veteran's VA treatment records did not indicate a current disability for plantar fasciitis, and no private treatment records were submitted. The Board found the evidence weighed against a service connection for this condition. However, the Board remanded the claims for sinusitis, hypertension, and type II diabetes mellitus. For sinusitis, the Board noted inconsistencies in a VA examination regarding a current diagnosis, requiring clarification. For hypertension and type II diabetes mellitus, the Board found that while current diagnoses were favorably established in the prior decision, service treatment records showed elevated blood pressure readings and potential diabetes testing, warranting further VA examination to determine in-service incurrence or relation to service. The Board's decision was based on the evidence of record as of the June 2021 rating decision and evidence received within 90 days of a withdrawn hearing request.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of bilateral plantar fasciitis established.; No evidence of in-service event, injury, or disease related to plantar fasciitis.; No evidence of connection between claimed symptoms and service.

Service Branch

NAVY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

211004-189174

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038659
Decision Date: 04/24/26 Archive Date: 04/24/26

DOCKET NO. 211004-189174
DATE: April 24, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral plantar fasciitis.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1980 to June 1984 and May 1987 to May 2003.

The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. The AMA became effective on February 19, 2019. The AMA modernized review system applies to all claims for which VA issues a notice of an initial decision on or after the February 19, 2019, effective date of the modernized review system.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2021 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the October 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD), the Veteran elected the hearing lane option therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence received up to the date of the rating decision and evidence received within 90 days of the date of the hearing.

On March 26, 2025, the Veteran's representative provided a written withdrawal for the Veteran's hearing request. Thus, the Board will proceed with the evidence of record as of the date of the October 2021 rating decision and evidence received within 90 days of the March 2025 withdrawal request.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38?U.S.C. §?1110; 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service-the so-called "nexus" requirement. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 38 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The absence of any one element will result in the denial of service connection.

An examination or opinion is necessary if the evidence of record (1) contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) establishes that the claimant suffered an event, injury, or disease in service, or has a presumptive disease or symptoms of such a disease manifesting during an applicable presumptive period; and (3) indicates that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease in service, or with another service-connected disability; but (4) does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim. 38?C.F.R. §?3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20?Vet. App.?79 (2006) (discussing the four elements to consider in determining whether a VA medical examination must be provided).

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is denied.

The Veteran contends that he has bilateral plantar fasciitis related to his active-duty service. However, the record does not establish the Veteran has a current disability with respect to plantar fasciitis.

The Veteran has not identified any private treatment records to be associated with his file, nor has he submitted any evidence indicating a current diagnosis or disability related to plantar fasciitis. Further, the Veteran's VA treatment records do not indicate the Veteran has a current disability with respect to plantar fasciitis.

The Board acknowledges that a VA examination has not been obtained; however, one is not warranted
consider in determining whether a VA medical examination must be provided).

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is denied.

The Board acknowledges that a VA examination has not been obtained; however, one is not warranted in this case. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). In this case, there is not competent evidence of a disability or peristent symptoms related to the Veteran's claimed plantar fasciitis, no evidence of a connection between the claimed symptoms and service, and no evidence of an in service event, injury or disease related to these conditions. Thus, the low standard of McLendon has not been met and VA examinations are not warranted. Id.

Consequently, the Board finds the most persuasive evidence to be against finding that the Veteran has plantar fasciitis, or that plantar fasciitis is related to his active-duty service. Thus, service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is denied.

REASONS FOR REMAND

Under the AMA, the Board must remand a claim to correct an error by AOJ to satisfy its duty to assist the Veteran under 38?U.S.C. §?5103A, if the error occurred prior to the AOJ decision on appeal. 38?U.S.C. §?5103A (f)(2)(A); 38?C.F.R. §?20.802 (a). The Board may also remand a claim to correct any other AOJ error "in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating" the claim. 38?C.F.R. §?20.802 (a).

1. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded.

The Veteran contends that he has sinusitis related to his active-duty service; however, the record is unclear regarding whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sinusitis.

In the June 2021 VA examination, the VA examiner indicated that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of chronic sinusitis; however, later in the examination the examiner affirmatively noted that the Veteran has sinusitis. As the examination is inconsistent regarding a current diagnosis, the Board finds this is a pre-decisional duty to assist error and remand is warranted to determine whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sinusitis.

2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded.

The Veteran contends that he has hypertension related to his active-duty service; however, the Veteran has not yet been afforded a VA examination for his hypertension.

With respect to current disability, the June 2021 rating decision made a favorable finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hypertension. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b)(4); 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a).

With respect to in-service incurrence, the Veteran's service treatment records indicate an elevated blood pressure of 134/72 and 135/78 in March 2002 as well as an elevated blood pressure of 138/74 in August 2001. The Board finds this evidence meets the low bar of McClendon and remand is warranted to obtain a VA examination.

3. Entitlement to service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is remanded.

The Veteran contends that he has diabetes related to his active-duty service; however, the Veteran has not yet been afforded a VA examination for his diabetes.

With respect to current disability, the June 2021 rating decision made a favorable finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of diabetes. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b)(4); 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a).

With respect to in-service incurrence, the Veteran's service treatment records from March 2002 indicate the Veteran was seen for cholesterol issues and testing for potential diabetes. The Board finds this evidence meets the low bar of McClendon and remand is warranted to obtain a VA examination.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature, onset, and etiology of his sinusitis, hypertension, and diabetes. Any and all studies, tests, and
current diagnosis of diabetes. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b)(4); 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature, onset, and etiology of his sinusitis, hypertension, and diabetes. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiners should be performed.

The Veteran is competent to attest to observable events and symptomatology and such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the Veteran's reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so.

The examiners should address the following:

Sinusitis

(a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sinusitis. Explain why or why not.

(b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's sinusitis manifested in service, within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to service. Explain why or why not.

The examiner must address the June 2021 VA examination which contradicts whether or not the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sinusitis.

Hypertension

(c.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's hypertension manifested in service, within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to service. Explain why or why not.

The examiner must address the Veteran's elevated blood pressure readings in his service treatment records.

Diabetes

(d.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's diabetes manifested in service, within one year of separation from service, or is otherwise related to service. Explain why or why not.

The examiner must address the Veteran's service treatment records concerning testing for diabetes while the Veteran was on active-duty service.

GAYLE STROMMEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Risley, Haley

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