Foot (incl. plantar fasciitis, flat feet) decisions — 2003

The veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is being remanded due to the need for compliance with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA).

The Board found that the veteran's left foot disability did not meet the criteria for a higher rating, as it was not shown to be moderately severe or involve an area exceeding 12 square inches.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for separate 10 percent evaluations for bilateral tinnitus and service connection for bilateral pes planus, finding that separate ratings for tinnitus are not warranted as a matter of law.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection and higher ratings for his perirectal abscess, pes planus, and contact dermatitis. The claim for residuals of frostbite of the right third finger remains pending.

The Board has ordered further development in the veteran's case due to pending requests for additional evidence and clarification. The appeal is currently remanded for additional development, including obtaining information from the U.S. Armed Services Center for Research of Unit Records (USASCRUR) and arranging for the veteran to be examined by a VA medical facility.

The Board has ordered further development due to pending issues regarding the veteran's claim for service connection for a calcaneal spur of the left foot and plantar fasciitis. The case is now remanded for additional examination and review.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed before the claim for a total disability evaluation based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities can be fully adjudicated.

The Board has granted service connection for depression as secondary to service-connected PTSD, and the veteran's claims for increased ratings for hypertension and pes planus with bilateral foot strain have been granted. The remaining issues on appeal are addressed in the decision summary.

The Board has ordered further development due to pending issues and the need for additional evidence. The case is now remanded to the RO for specific actions.

The Board has determined that there is no current diagnosis of a bilateral hip disorder or pes planus, and thus service connection for these conditions cannot be established.

The VA denied an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for the veteran's left foot disability, finding that current manifestations are best represented as a moderately severe impairment.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral pes planus, a heel contusion, gangrene of both feet, and swelling of ankles due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board denied an increased evaluation for the veteran's service-connected bilateral pes planus, finding that the disability did not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an initial compensable evaluation for pes planus, finding that there was no evidence of any compensable disability as a result of his military service since August 2000.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings on his service-connected conditions are being remanded to allow for additional development of the medical evidence.

The veteran has withdrawn his appeal of all issues related to service connection.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim of service connection for bilateral pes planus disability. The pre-existing condition was found to have been aggravated by military service.

The veteran's appeal was timely filed, and the Board found that his service connection claims for bilateral subluxated metatarsophalangeal joints and bilateral traumatic arthritis of the feet were granted. The claim for increased ratings for plantar warts was also granted.

The Board has denied the appellant's claims for service connection for residuals of gunshot wounds to his right hand and thigh, tuberculosis, bilateral foot disability, and skin disability due to herbicide exposure. The hearing loss claim is also not established.

The Board has ordered further development due to pending issues and evidence. The case will be returned to the RO for additional development before a final decision can be made.