flat feet

[dapilgrim]

Is bilateral Pes Planus and unlateral  Hallux Valgus rated separately or together?  How does that work?

[vetquest]

We need some more information for this please.

[doc25]

14 hours ago, dapilgrim said:

Is bilateral Pes Planus and unlateral  Hallux Valgus rated separately or together?  How does that work?

If it is found that flat feet caused the bunions then it would be rated seperately, on a secondary basis. That's probably the only way to get a separate rating. Bunions are rated 10% only. Flat feet max. rating is 50%.

But, don't be surprised if the the ratings scheduler combines the two as "Bilateral Flat feet with unilateral hallux valgus". This is to avoid pyramiding.

Hope this answered your question.

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by doc25

[dapilgrim]

This is what the C&P examiner wrote to the RO when asked for more detail. 

MEDICAL OPINION SUMMARY ----------------------RESTATEMENT OF REQUESTED OPINION: 
a. Opinion from general remarks: Was the veteran's pes planus (bilateral) (which clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service) aggravated beyond its natural progression by (the) treatment during service? 
b. Indicate type of exam for which opinion has been requested: Foot
TYPE OF MEDICAL OPINION PROVIDED: [ MEDICAL OPINION FOR AGGRAVATION OF A CONDITION THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE ]
a. The claimed condition, which clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, was aggravated beyond its natural progression by an in-service event, injury or illness. 
c. Rationale: Per available str the veteran had a diagnosis of pes planus on enlistment. Flatfoot (pes planus) is a condition in which the longitudinal arch in the foot, which runs lengthwise along the sole of the foot, has not developed normally and is lowered or flattened out. With the excessive standing, walking, jumping and running can lead to pain in the plantar surface of the feet.

Second Statement from C&P examiner.

The veteran denies medical evaluations and has not tried arch supports.
 

What the xrays stated...................

1/3/2019 bilateral weight bearing x-rays
                
               There is bilateral pes planus.  There is mild hallux valgus on
               the left.  Some mild degenerative change involves the left first
               MTP joint. 
                No soft tissue swelling.  

             Impression:
                Degenerative change as above.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by dapilgrim
adding more info

[doc25]

18 minutes ago, dapilgrim said:

This is what the C&P examiner wrote to the RO when asked for more detail. 

MEDICAL OPINION SUMMARY ----------------------RESTATEMENT OF REQUESTED OPINION: 
a. Opinion from general remarks: Was the veteran's pes planus (bilateral) (which clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service) aggravated beyond its natural progression by (the) treatment during service? 
b. Indicate type of exam for which opinion has been requested: Foot
TYPE OF MEDICAL OPINION PROVIDED: [ MEDICAL OPINION FOR AGGRAVATION OF A CONDITION THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO SERVICE ]
a. The claimed condition, which clearly and unmistakably existed prior to service, was aggravated beyond its natural progression by an in-service event, injury or illness. 
c. Rationale: Per available str the veteran had a diagnosis of pes planus on enlistment. Flatfoot (pes planus) is a condition in which the longitudinal arch in the foot, which runs lengthwise along the sole of the foot, has not developed normally and is lowered or flattened out. With the excessive standing, walking, jumping and running can lead to pain in the plantar surface of the feet.

Ok. So, the examiner established that fact. It still doesn't say one of these:

1. "Due to" 100% probability

2. "More likely than not" greater than 50% probability

3. "At least as likely as not" equal to or greater than 50% probability.

With that being said, I do hope what was written will substantiate a granted decision in your favor.

[dapilgrim]

Seem like the examiner  and the rater going back and forth.

 

But the C&P examiner did state it was further aggravated by military service. I Do not  know if that is enough to warrant it being granted

Edited March 30, 2019 by dapilgrim

[doc25]

On 3/30/2019 at 1:28 PM, dapilgrim said:

Seem like the examiner  and the rater going back and forth.

 

But the C&P examiner did state it was further aggravated by military service. I Do not  know if that is enough to warrant it being granted

I think if it gets denied. Of course, appeal it but in your NOD point out the fact that the rater did not provide due diligence to your claim and proper guidance to the examiner of what exactly is required. Also, point out that the duty to assist was neglected to substantiate your claim.

Best wishes.