Citation Nr: 18141106 Decision Date: 10/09/18 Archive Date: 10/09/18 DOCKET NO. 13-12 102 DATE: October 9, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for left shoulder impingement/rotator cuff tendinitis (exclusive of the period from September 10, 2013, to October 31, 2013, during which time a temporary total evaluation was assigned pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.30), is remanded.   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from July 1996 to June 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2011 rating decision. The Board remanded the case for further development in April 2015, October 2016, and November 2017. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. During the pendency of the appeal, in multiple rating decisions, most recently in June 2018, the RO increased the disability rating of the left shoulder disability to 20 percent, effective since September 2010. Because this increased rating does not represent a grant of the maximum benefits allowable, the issue remains in appellate status. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993); Murphy v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 510, 514 (2014). 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for left shoulder impingement/rotator cuff tendinitis (exclusive of the period from September 10, 2013, to October 31, 2013, during which time a temporary total evaluation was assigned pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.30). While the record here contains contemporaneous VA examinations regarding the Veteran’s disability, the examinations do not comply with the requirements in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016). The most recent VA examination, from May 2018, states that there was objective evidence of pain on passive range of motion testing, but does not contain passive range of motion measurements or pain on weight-bearing testing. The Board previously remanded for this information. Therefore, there was not substantial compliance to this extent. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); see D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 104-05 (2008). Likewise, the examinations do not comply with the requirements in Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 34-36 (2017). The May 2018 VA examiner marked that the Veteran had limited functional ability with flare-ups. The examiner then marked that this could not be described in terms of range of motion. But, the examiner did not explain why. Rather, in the box provided for this information, the examiner simply commented that the Veteran “reports increased pain with decreased [range of motion] after increased activity.” This statement further explains what her functional limitations were, but does not explain why ranges of motion could not be provided. The examiner gave a similar assessment regarding repeated use over time. As such, a new VA examination is needed. The Veteran’s updated VA treatment records, if relevant, should also be obtained, and she should be provided the opportunity to submit or identify any further private (non-VA) treatment records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for any private (non-VA) medical provider or facility having additional relevant records, if any. Make two requests for any identified, authorized records from, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of her service-connected left shoulder disability. The examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner must also attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the disability alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). C. BOSELY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Kettler, Associate Counsel