Citation Nr: 18148292 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 12-13 615 DATE: November 7, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for degenerative joint disease of the right ankle, residuals of right ankle fracture, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1980 to July 1983. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2015. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The undersigned Veterans Law Judge held the record open for a 60-day period following the hearing to allow for the submission of additional evidence; however, the Veteran did not submit any additional evidence thereafter. The Board remanded the case for further development in August 2015. The requested development was completed, and the case was returned to the Board for appellate review. In an August 2017 decision, the Board denied the above claim, as well as another claim that was on appeal. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In June 2018, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion) filed by the parties and remanded the above claim to the Board. The parties agreed in the Joint Motion that the February 2017 VA examination was inadequate for rating purposes because the examiner’s explanation that an opinion regarding functional loss due to repetitive use over time could not be provided without resorting to mere speculation was inadequate in light of the requirements under Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). In addition, the parties agreed that the examination was inadequate because the examination report did not satisfy the requirements under Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) (concluding that 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires VA examinations to include joint testing for pain on both active and passive range of motion, as well as with weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing). The February 2017 VA examiner determined that such testing was not necessary and explained why it was not medically advisable in any joint-related case; however, the parties agreed that an examination containing the necessary joint testing, or an opinion specific to the Veteran’s case as to why such testing should not be performed, is needed to be compliant with Correia. Based on the foregoing, a remand is required to provide an additional VA examination consistent with the terms of the Joint Motion. The case is REMANDED for the following action: The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to ascertain the severity and manifestations of his service-connected degenerative joint disease of the right ankle, residuals of right ankle fracture. Any studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file. It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, including observable symptomatology. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. The examiner should report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. In particular, the examiner should provide the range of motion of the left and right ankles in degrees on active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing. 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 provide an explanation for this determination in the report based on the specific facts and circumstances of this Veteran’s case. The examiner should state whether there is any marked limited motion; ankylosis; malunion of the os calcis or astragalus; or, evidence of an astragalectomy. The presence of objective evidence of pain, excess fatigability, incoordination, and weakness should also be noted, as should any additional disability due to these factors (including any additional loss of motion). The examiner should also discuss any additional functional impairment that occurs during flare-ups, including any additional limitation of motion. A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Copies of all pertinent records in the Veteran’s claims file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Postek, Counsel