Citation Nr: 18144894 Decision Date: 10/25/18 Archive Date: 10/25/18 DOCKET NO. 12-07 176 DATE: October 25, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess 10 percent for service-connected residuals of a left ankle strain is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1992 to May 1996. In February 2016 and February 2017, the Board remanded this case for additional development. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess 10 percent for service-connected residuals of a left ankle strain is remanded. The Board regrets the delay involved in remanding this claim again; however, in the February 2017 remand, the Board requested that the Veteran be afforded a VA examination to assess his left ankle disorder. Specifically, the Board instructed that the examination must include range of motion testing on active and passive motion, and in weight bearing and nonweight bearing conditions (pursuant to Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016)). Nevertheless, the Board notes that, while the Veteran was provided an April 2017 VA examination, the VA examiner did not conduct range of motion testing in active or passive ranges, or on nonweight bearing conditions. Additionally, the March 2018 VA addendum medical opinion did not address these factors. The Board emphasizes that compliance with the Board’s remand instructions is neither optional nor discretionary. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Accordingly, remand is required for a new VA examination consistent with the directives herein. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate examiner to assess the nature and current severity of his left ankle disorder. The claims folder (including a copy of this remand) must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner as part of the examination. All indicated tests should be accomplished and all clinical findings reported in detail. The examiner is asked to fully describe the current severity of the disability including all objective manifestations and must comply with the following: a) The examiner should address any weakened movement, excess fatigability with use, incoordination, and painful motion. b) The examiner must address range of motion loss specifically due to pain and any functional loss during flare-ups. The examiner is to express an opinion on whether pain could significantly limit functional ability during flare-ups or when the joint is used repeatedly over a period of time. Based on the Veteran’s lay statements and the other evidence of record, the examiner should provide an opinion estimating any additional degrees of limited range of motion caused by functional loss during a flare-up as well as after repeated use over time. c) Testing of the range of motion must include testing in active motion and passive motion. The examiner should also discuss weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing ranges, if possible, obtain ranges of motion of the opposite undamaged joint. If such are not applicable, the examiner should state such along with an explanation. d) If it is not feasible to provide the degrees in which there is an additional loss in range of motion during flare-ups or repeated use over time or any range of motion testing, then the clinician must provide an adequate explanation as to why. e) The examiner should also comment on the functional impairment caused by the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle disorder. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. (Continued on the next page)   A rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. E. Metzner, Associate Counsel