Citation Nr: 1318099 Decision Date: 06/04/13 Archive Date: 06/11/13 DOCKET NO. 08-07 952 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent residuals of left ankle injury. 2. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome, right knee. 3. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome, left knee. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Van Wambeke, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from August 2002 to March 2007. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2007 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. The RO in Detroit, Michigan, currently has jurisdiction of the claims. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Board remanded the claims in June 2010 in order for more contemporaneous VA examinations to be scheduled, as the last VA examination was three years old and the Veteran had reported an increase in the severity of the symptoms associated with his left ankle, left knee, and right knee disorders. A VA joints examination was conducted in November 2010. This VA examination is almost three years old and the Veteran asserts that his current symptoms are much more severe than what the most recent results show. Given the foregoing, the claims must be remanded for new VA examinations. See Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281, 284 (1993). As the claims are being remanded for the foregoing reason, recent VA treatment records from the VA facility in Battle Creek, Michigan, should also be obtained. VA should also make efforts to obtain the Veteran's complete treatment records from the Central Texas Healthcare System, as the Veteran has submitted incomplete records from this facility that reference treatment related to complaints involving his left ankle. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's complete treatment records from the Central Texas Healthcare System and his records from the VA facility in Battle Creek, Michigan, dated since March 2008. 2. The Veteran must be afforded an orthopedic examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected left ankle, left knee, and right knee disabilities. The claims file and all records on Virtual VA must be made available to the examiner, and the examiner must specify in the examination report that the claims file and Virtual VA records have been reviewed. The examiner must specify the dates encompassed by the Virtual VA records that were reviewed. All indicated testing must be conducted, including radiographic examination and a thorough orthopedic examination of the Veteran's left ankle, left knee, and right knee. The orthopedic examiner must conduct full range of motion studies on all joints listed above. The examiner must first record the range of motion on clinical evaluation, in terms of degrees. If there is clinical evidence of pain on motion, the orthopedic examiner must indicate the specific degree of motion at which such pain begins. The examiner must first record the range of motion on clinical evaluation, in terms of degrees with a goniometer. If there is clinical evidence of pain on motion, the examiner must indicate the specific degree of motion at which such pain begins. The same range of motion studies must then be repeated after at least 3 repetitions and after any appropriate weight-bearing exertion. Then, after reviewing the Veteran's complaints and medical history, the examiner must render an opinion as to the extent to which the Veteran experiences functional impairments, such as weakness, excess fatigability, lack of coordination, or pain due to repeated use or flare-ups, etc. Objective evidence of loss of functional use can include the presence or absence of muscle atrophy and/or the presence or absence of changes in the skin indicative of disuse due to any service-connected musculoskeletal disorder. The examiner must also report any neurological findings due to any service-connected musculoskeletal disorder. Any opinion provided must include an explanation of the basis for the opinion. If any of the above requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and specifically explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. The report must be typed. 3. The RO must notify the Veteran that it is his responsibility to report for all VA examinations scheduled, and to cooperate in the development of the claims. The consequences for failure to report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claims. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.158, 3.655 (2012). In the event that the Veteran does not report for any scheduled examination, documentation must be obtained which shows that notice scheduling the examination was sent to the last known address. It must also be indicated whether any notice that was sent was returned as undeliverable. Copies of all documentation notifying the Veteran of any scheduled VA examination must be placed in the Veteran's claims file. 4. The RO must then readjudicate the claims and if any claim on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative must be provided a supplemental statement of the case. After the Veteran has had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. No action is required by the Veteran until he receives further notice; however, he may present additional evidence or argument while the case is in remand status at the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). _________________________________________________ JOY A. MCDONALD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 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) (2012).