Citation Nr: 18146567
Decision Date: 10/31/18	Archive Date: 10/31/18

DOCKET NO. 14-11 608
DATE:	October 31, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an increased rating for left tibial plateau fracture with left knee retropatellar pain and chondromalacia, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded.
Entitlement to an increased rating for right femoral condyle and tibia fracture with right knee pain and chondromalacia, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active military service from August 1992 to October 1999 in the United States Army and subsequent National Guard service.
These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a January 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California.  During the appeal, the RO recharacterized the service-connected disabilities to include a diagnosis of chondromalacia.
In March 2017, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of that hearing is of record. 
These matters were previously before the Board in February 2018 when they were remanded for a VA examination and retrospective opinion. 
1. Entitlement to an increased rating for left tibial plateau fracture with left knee retropatellar pain and chondromalacia, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded.
2. Entitlement to an increased rating for right femoral condyle and tibia fracture with right knee pain and chondromalacia, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling, is remanded.
In its February 2018 Remand, the Board directed, with regard to a future examination, as follows:
The examiner should review the prior VA examination reports from 2009 and 2015 and provide a retrospective opinion, if reasonably possible, which identifies the range of motion of the Veteran’s knees in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and non-weight-bearing. If it is not possible to provide such an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, please so state and provide an explanation as to why an opinion cannot be given.
In July 2018, the Veteran was provided a VA examination for his knees; however, the examiner did not provide a retrospective opinion or to state whether such was possible.  Thus, a remand for compliance with the Board’s directive is required.  Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 
Additionally, the July 2018 VA examination report notes that the Veteran had range of motion from 0 to 110 degrees bilaterally with pain on flexion at the endpoint.  The examiner did not differentiate between active range of motion on weightbearing and non-weightbearing.  If there is a difference, the clinician should so state. 
The matters are REMANDED for the following action:
1. Please obtain any outstanding VA or non-VA treatment.
2. Obtain a supplemental medical opinion from the July 2018 VA clinician which addresses the following (another examination should be scheduled only if deemed necessary by the clinician):
A.	The examiner should review the prior VA examination reports from 2009 and 2015 and provide a retrospective opinion, if reasonably possible, which identifies the range of motion of the Veteran’s knees in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and non-weight-bearing. If it is not possible to provide such an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, please so state and provide an explanation as to why an opinion cannot be given.
B.	With regard to the July 2018 VA examination, the clinician should state whether there was a difference between the Veteran’s bilateral, active range of motion on weightbearing and on non-weightbearing, and if so, the endpoints for each.  If there is no 
 
difference and the flexion was to 110 degrees with pain at 100 degrees on both weightbearing and non-weight bearing, the clinician should so state. 
 
M. C. GRAHAM
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	T. Wishard