Citation Nr: 18148313 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 09-18 418 DATE: November 7, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased disability rating for osteoarthritis of the left knee, status post total knee arthropathy, rated as 30 percent disabling prior to November 14, 2012, and 60-percent disabling thereafter. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee degenerative joint disease. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for instability of the right knee associated with right knee degenerative joint disease.   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from November 1976 to October 1994. This matter is on appeal from August 2008 and March 2013 rating decisions. In June 2017 and December 2017, the claims were remanded by the Board for further development. In the June 2017 decision, the Board also remanded the Veteran’s claim for service connection for tinea versicolor. In an August 2017 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for this disability. As such is a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal with respect to such issue, it is no longer before the Board. Additionally, in a January 2015 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted a separate noncompensable rating for a surgical scar of the left knee, effective May 17, 2013. 1. For the entire appeal period (excluding period when a total disability rating is in effect), a rating of 60 percent, but no higher, for osteoarthritis of the left knee, status post total knee arthropathy is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of monetary awards. is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for instability of the right knee associated with right knee degenerative joint disease is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee degenerative joint disease is remanded. These issues are remanded for a new VA examination. The Board’s last remanded these issues for a new VA examination consistent with Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). Upon remand, a VA examination was conducted in January 2018. That examination is not compliant with Sharp. Nor is the VA examination compliant with the related case of Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016). Specifically, as it concerns repeated use over time, the VA examiner reported that the Veteran “did not report degree of loss of ROM after repetitive use over time.” Pursuant to Sharp, it is the VA examiner’s affirmative duty to solicit this information. To this extent, it is not clear from the VA examiner’s comment whether the Veteran affirmatively denied limitation of motion or whether the VA examiner did not ask, and the Veteran did not volunteer, this information. Due to this lack of clarity, the VA examiner’s opinion is not substantially complaint with the requirements of Sharp. Relatedly, to be compliant with Correia, it is not enough that an examiner test range of motion for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. The VA examiner must also include the results of the range of motion testing. See Correia, 28 Vet. App. at 168. This was not accomplished here, so the VA examination is not compliant with Correia. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his knee disabilities. The examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner must also attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the knee disabilities alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s disabilities on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). C. BOSELY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Brennae L. Brooks, Associate Counsel