Citation Nr: 18143851
Decision Date: 10/22/18	Archive Date: 10/22/18

DOCKET NO. 03-08 282
DATE:	October 22, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an extraschedular evaluation for a left knee disability is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from March 1987 to July 1990.
The claim of entitlement to an extraschedular evaluation for a left knee disability was remanded by the Board in January 2016 and October 2016. In February 2017, the claim was referred to the Director of Compensation Service (Director) for extraschedular consideration under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) by the Appeals Management Center (AMC). In September 2017, the Director denied entitlement to an increased evaluation in excess of 30 percent, for subluxation and lateral instability of the left knee and in excess of 30 percent for limitation of extension of the left knee. 
Entitlement to an extraschedular evaluation for a left knee disability is remanded.
In April 2015, the Board remanded the claim of entitlement to a separate evaluation for a left knee disability based upon locking of the knee and/or other manifestations of the semilunar cartilage for further development. In a January 2016 decision, the Board denied entitlement to a separate evaluation. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). A November 2017 Panel Decision from the Court reversed the Board’s finding that the Veteran’s pain and swelling associated with his left knee disability were compensated by his 30 percent evaluation under Diagnostic Code (DC) 5257 and remanded the Veteran’s left knee meniscal disability claim. The Court found that the Board did not properly assess whether the Veteran’s pain, swelling, popping, locking, and grinding associated with his left knee meniscal disability would have been compensated by his current left knee evaluation under DC 5261. Specifically, the Court found that a determination as to whether a separate evaluation of a meniscal disability under either DC 5258 or 5259 is warranted on the facts of the case or whether such evaluation would constitute impermissible pyramiding was necessary. 
In July 2018, the Board remanded the claim for entitlement to a separate evaluation for the left knee disability based upon locking of the knee and/or other manifestations of the semilunar cartilage for further development to comply with the Court’s directives. It does not appear that the remand directives, to include updating treatment records and scheduling an examination of the Veteran’s left knee, have been fulfilled. After ensuring that the remand directives have been fulfilled, the claim for a separate evaluation should be adjudicated prior to adjudication of the claim of entitlement to an extraschedular evaluation for a left knee disability.
A determination with respect to the claim for a separate evaluation for the left knee disability may have an impact upon consideration of the issue of entitlement to an extraschedular evaluation for a left knee disability on appeal; the Board finds that these issues are inextricably intertwined. The appropriate remedy where a pending claim is inextricably intertwined with a claim currently on appeal is to defer the claim on appeal pending the adjudication of the inextricably intertwined claim. As such, Board consideration of the merits of the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to an extraschedular evaluation for a left knee disability is deferred pending compliance with the July 2018 Board remand directives and readjudication of the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to a separate evaluation for the left knee disability based upon locking of the knee and/or other manifestations of the semilunar cartilage.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Once the development for the claim of entitlement to a separate evaluation for the left knee disability based upon locking of the knee and/or other manifestations of the semilunar cartilage is completed, send both increased ratings claims, schedular and extraschedular back to the Board for additional consideration.
 
A. P. SIMPSON
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	D. Cheng, Associate Counsel