Citation Nr: 18148355 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 13-12 027 DATE: November 8, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee degenerative changes with chondromalacia and tendonitis (left knee disability) is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee chondromalacia and tendonitis (right knee disability) is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left foot plantar fasciitis, pes planus, and hallux valgus (left foot disability) is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right foot plantar fasciitis, pes planus, and hallux valgus (right foot disability) is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from May 1986 to May 1989 and from July 1989 to June 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. Jurisdiction of these matters is with the RO in Roanoke, Virginia. The Veteran was scheduled for a hearing before the Board in May 2017; however, the Veteran, through his attorney, withdrew his request for a hearing in May 2017. When this case was before the Board in June 2017, it was remanded for further development. It is now before the Board for further appellate action. In the June 2017 Remand, the Board directed that the Veteran be afforded examinations for his hypertension, right and left foot disabilities, and right and left knee disabilities. The record indicates that the examinations were initiated for Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) for hypertension, feet and a medical opinion. See March 2018 VA record. VA did not initiate any knee examinations. A remand is needed so that the Veteran can be afforded VA examinations for his left and right knee disabilities. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). The July 2018 supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) indicates that the Veteran failed to report for examinations for the issues on appeal. In August 2018, the Veteran’s attorney explained that the Veteran did not attend these examinations because he had not received notice for these examinations. Since the time of the Board’s June 2017 remand, the Veteran has attended four examinations for other disabilities that are currently not on appeal. This demonstrates that the Veteran is willing to attend examinations and further suggests that he may not have received notification for the foot and hypertension DBQs. Therefore, the Veteran should be given another opportunity to participate in examinations for his hypertension and foot disabilities. While the case is in remand status, the AOJ should attempt to obtain records from Langley Air Force Base. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from June 2018 to the Present. All records/responses received must be associated with the electronic claims file. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s records from Langley Air Force Base. Document all requests for information as well as all responses in the claims file. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his left and right foot disabilities, including plantar fasciitis, pes planus, and hallux valgus. The examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner must 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 left and right foot disabilities alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s left and right foot 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). 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his right and left 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 right and left knee disabilities alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s right and left knee 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). 5. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected hypertension. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due hypertension alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s hypertension on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. 6. Readjudicate the Veteran’s claims, with application of all appropriate laws, regulations, and case law, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he and his attorney should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an appropriate period of time within which to respond thereto. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tahirih S. Samadani, Counsel