BVA9505638 DOCKET NO. 93-13 065 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a right foot disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Ronald R. Bosch, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1974 to December 1975 and from September 1976 to May 1978. The claims file contains a report of a rating decision dated in August 1979 denying entitlement to service connection for right foot strain. The veteran timely filed a notice of disagreement with the above determination, but she failed to timely file a substantive appeal. The current appeal arose from a September 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. The RO affirmed the denial of entitlement to service connection for a right foot disorder. The RO determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for a right foot disorder when it issued a rating decision in January 1993. REMAND The Board's review of the appellant's September 1992 claim for compensation benefits shows she referred to service connection for a "condition of the feet." The representative has also noted that it is the appellant's intent to claim compensation benefits for a bilateral foot disorder as opposed to a right foot disorder. Hence, this claim warranted de novo consideration of the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left foot disorder. A review of the appellant’s service medical records reveals that in January 1977 she was treated for complaints of bilateral foot pain. A cavus deformity was diagnosed, as was questionable plantar fasciitis. The veteran was placed on a temporary physical profile due to a right foot strain in May 1977. At an April 1978 separation examination bilateral pes planus was found. The Board observes that pes planus was not shown when she was examined for entrance onto active duty for her second period of service. A February 1979 VA examination diagnosed symptomatic pes cavus. The appellant has claimed longstanding treatment for her feet since service, however, records pertaining to such treatment are not on file. The Board is of the opinion that the appellant's post service records of treatment and a contemporaneous examination of the feet would materially assist in the adjudication of her appeal. Accordingly, pursuant to VA's duty to assist the appellant in the development of facts pertinent to her claim under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1994), this case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the appellant and request that she identify all health care professionals, VA and private, who have treated her for disorders of the feet since separation from service. After obtaining any necessary authorization, the RO should obtain and associate with the claims file photocopies of the complete treatment reports from all identified sources. This request is to include, but is not limited to, the records of Donald C. Edgren M.D., 1312 N. Walnut, Cameron, Missouri 64429; Jessie E. Cooperider, D.O., 309 North Groat, Cameron, Missouri 64429; and Terry Ross D.C., 209 Main, Braymer, Missouri 64624. 2. Following the receipt of the records requested above the RO should schedule the appellant for an examination by a podiatrist to determine the nature, extent, and severity of any foot disorder which may be present. This examination must be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician’s Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated studies should be conducted. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the examination. If a foot disorder is diagnosed, the examiner is requested to offer an opinion whether it is at least as likely as not that the disorder is related to the pes planus found at the veteran’s separation from active duty. 3. After undertaking any development deemed appropriate in addition to that specified above, the RO should readjudicate the issue of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a foot disorder. If the benefit requested on appeal is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case. A reasonable period of time for a response should be afforded. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until she is notified by the RO. DEREK R. BROWN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).