Citation Nr: 1332124	
Decision Date: 10/17/13    Archive Date: 10/21/13

DOCKET NO.  10-08 312A	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida


THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased rating for degenerative joint disease and chondromalacia of the left knee, currently rated at 10 percent.

2.  Entitlement to an increased rating for degenerative joint disease and chondromalacia of the right knee, currently rated at 10 percent.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Castillo, Associate Counsel
 


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1957 to June 1960.

These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2009 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), that denied claims for increased ratings in excess of 10 percent.

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

A June 2013 statement from the Veteran's private physician reported that degenerative joint disease of the knees had worsened since the Veteran was last examined by VA; a reexamination is needed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.327 (2013).

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  Schedule the Veteran for a VA joints examination.  The entire claim file (i.e., the paper claim file and any medical records contained in Virtual VA, CAPRI, and AMIE) must be reviewed by the examiner.  If the examiner does not have access to Virtual VA, any relevant treatment records contained in the Virtual VA file that are not available on CAPRI or AMIE must be printed and associated with the paper claim file so they can be available to the examiner for review. 

The examiner must describe in detail the current status of the Veteran's service connected left and right knee disabilities.  Arthritis/limitation of motion, instability, and subluxation must be specifically addressed, and the impact of pain, weakness, fatigue, lack of endurance, and incoordination with repetitive motion must be described with regard to actual functional capacity.

The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed.  If the examiner feels that the requested opinions cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training).

2.  Then, readjudicate the appeal.  If either of the benefits sought remains denied, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and return the case to the Board.

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded.  Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

These claims must be afforded expeditious treatment.  The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.  See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012).



_________________________________________________
RONALD W. SCHOLZ
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).