Citation Nr: 18145961
Decision Date: 10/30/18	Archive Date: 10/30/18

DOCKET NO. 13-01 572
DATE:	October 30, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an increased evaluation for status post rotator cuff repair, left shoulder impingement syndrome, evaluated as 10 percent disabling from August 31, 2007, to January 30, 2011, and 30 percent disabling from January 31, 2011 (but not to include a 100 percent temporary evaluation from April 22, 2013, to June 30, 2013) is remanded.
Entitlement to an increased evaluation for chondromalacia left knee, with medial meniscus tear, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from May 1978 to March 2000. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2008 rating decision.
The Veteran testified at a January 2016 videoconference hearing before the Board; a transcript of the hearing is associated with the record.
These matters were previously before the Board in September 2014, June 2016, and September 2017.

1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for status post rotator cuff repair, left shoulder impingement syndrome, evaluated as 10 percent disabling from August 31, 2007, to January 30, 2011, and 30 percent disabling from January 31, 2011 (but not to include a 100 percent temporary evaluation from April 22, 2013, to June 30, 2013) is remanded.
The Veteran indicated in a December 2010 statement that he received treatment from the Houston VA medical center (VAMC).  The VAMC records currently associated with the claims file cover the period from August 2007 to December 2007 and April 5, 2013, to present.  Accordingly, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction should associate any records prior to April 5, 2013, with the record.
Remand is also necessary to obtain an additional VA medical opinion.  The September 2017 Remand directed the VA examiner to provide a retrospective opinion addressing prior range of motion of the left shoulder (and paired joints), painful motion (and at what point it started), additional loss of motion after repetitions, and functional loss due to pain, considering active and passive motion as well as weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing considerations.  The October 2017 VA examination did not address this request.  Thus, an additional VA opinion that meets the requirements of the September 2017 Remand is required.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App 268, 271 (1998) (holding that the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance with its remand orders).     
2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for chondromalacia left knee, with medial meniscus tear, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded.
Remand is necessary to obtain an additional VA medical opinion.  The September 2017 Remand directed the VA examiner to provide a retrospective opinion addressing prior range of motion of the left knee (and paired joints), painful motion (and at what point it started), additional loss of motion after repetitions, and functional loss due to pain, considering active and passive motion as well as weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing considerations.  The October 2017 VA examination did not address this request.  Thus, an additional VA opinion that meets the requirements of the September 2017 Remand is required.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App 268, 271 (1998) (holding that the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance with its remand orders).     
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records from the Houston VAMC for the period prior to April 5, 2013. 
2. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician providing a retrospective opinion addressing prior range of motion of the left shoulder and left knee, painful motion (and at what point it started), additional loss of motion after repetitions, and functional loss due to pain, considering active and passive motion as well as weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing considerations. This retrospective opinion should also include any paired joints.
If the clinician cannot provide one or more of the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, he or she should expressly indicate this and provide a 
 
supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation.
 
M. H. HAWLEY
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	W. Ripplinger, Associate Counsel