Citation Nr: 18147777 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/06/18 DOCKET NO. 12-28 975 DATE: November 6, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent prior to April 18, 2018 and a noncompensable rating thereafter for the Veteran's right knee patellofemoral syndrome (previously evaluated as degenerative arthritis) is remanded. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for painful extension of the right knee. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from December 2006 to May 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the March 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. The Veteran appeared at a January 2014 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. This matter was previously before the Board in June 2017 and February 2018 and was remanded for further development. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). This matter was remanded by the Board in February 2018 for the Veteran to undergo a VA knee examination. In April 2018, the Veteran was scheduled for and underwent a VA knee examination. However, in October 2018, the Veteran and his representative submitted a specific statement noting that during the Veteran’s April 2018 the examiner never examined the Veteran’s right knee. The Veteran stated that the examiner asked the Veteran to bend his left knee as far as possible while standing and laying down. The Veteran specifically stated that his right knee was never touched or checked at any point during the examination. In light of this, the Board finds that a new examination is warranted. Since the claims file is being remanded, it should be updated to include any outstanding VA treatment records. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate those documents with the Veteran’s claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA knee examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service connected right knee disability. The examination should include all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner. The examiner should report all manifestations related to the service connected disability. The record and a copy of this Remand must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner must address the following: a) Pursuant to Correia, the examination should record the results of range of motion testing for pain on both active and passive motion and in weight bearing and non-weight bearing for BOTH knees. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. The examination results should be recorded using VA Form 21-0960M-9, May 2013, Knee and Lower Leg Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), or a more recent revision of that DBQ, if possible. In recording the ranges of motion for the Veteran’s knees, the examiner should note whether, upon repetitive motion, there is any pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination of movement, and whether there is likely to be additional functional loss due to pain on use, weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination over time. The examiner should also indicate whether the Veteran experiences additional functional loss during flare-ups of the service connected left knee disability. If there is no pain, no limitation of motion, and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. b) The examiner should also express an opinion concerning whether there would be additional functional impairment on repeated use or during flare-ups. The examiner should assess the additional functional impairment on repeated use or during flare-ups in terms of the degree of additional range of motion loss. If this is not feasible to determine without resort to speculation, the examiner must provide an explanation for why this is so. The examiner must note that the record was reviewed. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any opinion expressed. 3. The Board notes that this case has already been remanded for compliance with Correia. Therefore, the RO must ensure that compliance is obtained. If not, the RO should undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion. 4. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Mountford, Associate Counsel