Foot (incl. plantar fasciitis, flat feet) Board decisions

The Board has granted a 50% rating for the veteran's service-connected bilateral pes planus, which is the maximum schedular rating available.

The Board found that the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for pes planus is not well-grounded because there is no evidence showing a pre-existing condition in service or any subsequent increase in severity during service.

The Board denied service connection for a right foot disability and a cardiac disability, finding no new and material evidence to reopen the claims.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for headaches, residuals of a neck injury, pes planus, sinusitis, allergies, duodenal ulcers, and hernia are not well-grounded.

The Board has remanded the case to obtain medical records and conduct a thorough orthopedic evaluation. The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected bilateral metatarsalgia is denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus, finding that there was no evidence of an increase in severity during service and concluding that the preexisting condition had resolved by the time of discharge.

The veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral flat feet is being remanded due to the need to obtain additional medical records and provide the veteran with another opportunity to submit private treatment records.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for bilateral pes planus is denied as the evidence does not support a finding of pronounced impairment.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claim for service connection for lumbar strain is well-grounded and remanded to allow further development. The claims of bilateral shin splints and bilateral plantar fasciitis are not well-grounded.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have a well-grounded claim for service connection for right and left knee disorders or bilateral plantar fasciitis, as there is no medical evidence showing current disabilities related to service.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral foot disorder including pes planus, finding that there is no medical evidence linking any current foot disability to his period of active service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including a psychiatric disorder, bilateral ankle disorder, left side injury, vision problems, throat problem, low back disorder, and flat feet. The evidence submitted did not meet the criteria to reopen these claims.

The Board found that the appellant currently has no disability of the left or right foot and denied both claims for service connection.

The Board denied an increased rating for the appellant's bilateral foot disability, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating than the current 30 percent assigned.

The Board has granted a 10% disability rating for pes planus effective December 13, 1991.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus due to new evidence submitted, but denied the claim on the merits.

The Board has granted increased evaluations for the veteran's bilateral pes planus with plantar fasciitis and duodenal ulcer with hiatal hernia, assigning a 30 percent evaluation for each condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral pes planus warrants a 30 percent rating from December 9, 1998. The effective date for service connection remains January 24, 1994.

The Board denied service connection for depression and right upper extremity disorder (carpal tunnel syndrome) in March 1990. The veteran's claim for service connection for a right upper extremity disorder characterized as carpal tunnel syndrome is reopened, but the claim remains denied due to lack of evidence linking current disability to service.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for bilateral pes planus on an extraschedular basis was denied. The Board found that the preponderance of evidence did not support a higher rating.