Citation Nr: 18141844 Decision Date: 10/11/18 Archive Date: 10/11/18 DOCKET NO. 08-16 134 DATE: October 11, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for status post hemi-patellectomy, total knee replacement (previously separately rated as chondromalacia, left patella, with status post hemi-patellectomy and left knee instability (left knee disability) prior to October 14, 2010, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service in the United States Navy from December 1974 to April 1985. In September 2009, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). After an August 2017 Board decision denied an increased evaluation for a left knee disability, the Veteran subsequently appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). In April 2018, CAVC issued an order that vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the claim to the Board. Thus, the Board must remand this matter for compliance with the Court’s April 2018 order. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); see also Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 414, 425 (2006) (holding that the duty to ensure compliance with the Court’s order extends to the terms of the agreement struck by the parties that forms the basis of the joint motion to remand); cf. McBurney v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2009) (Board has a duty on remand to ensure compliance with the favorable terms stated in the CAVC decision or explain why the terms will not be fulfilled. Therefore, the Board is remanding this claim once again in order to receive an opinion as to whether the Veteran suffered additional limitation of motion or functional loss during a flare-up or when the knee joint was used repeatedly over a period of time, any estimation of range of motion during a flare-up or when the joint was used repeatedly over time, or an explanation as to why such detail could not feasibly be provided. The Court noted that the examiner explained in the March 2017 VA examination that he could not give an opinion regarding the Veteran’s functional loss due to pain and/or any other symptoms during flare-ups without resorting to speculation because there we no records showing progression of the disability and no documentation of quantitative ROM during flare-ups or after repetitive use over time during the appeal period. The Court ruled that the examiner failed to explicitly address the basis for the inability to assess any additional limitation after repeated use over time. Nor did the examiner address the Veteran regarding the functional loss he experienced during his flare-ups or after repeated use overtime. As such, the Board is once again asking for an addendum opinion from a VA examiner. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send the Veteran’s claims folder to the examiner who conducted the September 2013 VA examination (or if the examiner is no longer available, a suitable replacement) for a retrospective medical opinion as to how the Veteran’s left knee range of motion was affected by pain for the period on appeal prior to total left knee arthroplasty in December 2010. If possible, the examiner should comment on the period beginning on April 23, 1985, to October 13, 2010. The examiner should render specific findings with respect to whether there was objective evidence of pain on motion, weakness, excess fatigability, and/or incoordination. If pain on motion is indicated, the physician should indicate the point at which pain began, if possible. In addition, the examiner should specifically state whether, and to what extent, the Veteran experienced likely functional loss due to pain and/or any of the other symptoms noted above during flare-ups and/or with repeated use, to the extent possible, the examiner should express any such additional functional loss in terms of additional degrees of limited motion. If such detail cannot feasibly be provided, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why such detail cannot feasibly be provided. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Anderson