Citation Nr: 18148424 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 17-06 061 DATE: November 7, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for residuals of left inguinal hernia repair is denied. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for a scar associated with left inguinal hernia repair is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for gout is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral wrist disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right lateral collateral ligament sprain is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a recurrent left inguinal hernia since undergoing surgical repair during service. 2. The Veteran’s scar associated with left inguinal hernia repair is not painful and/or unstable, and does not measure at least six square inches (39 square centimeters (cm.)). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for residuals of left inguinal hernia repair are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.114, Diagnostic Code 7338 (2018). 2. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for a scar associated with left inguinal hernia repair are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7805 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 2008 to September 2013 in the United States Marine Corps. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Increased Rating Claims 1. Residuals of Left Inguinal Hernia Repair During a June 2015 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he underwent left inguinal hernia repair in 2013. He stated that his current symptoms included burning and sometimes shooting pains once a month. On examination, no inguinal hernia was detected. A review of the record indicates that the Veteran’s left inguinal hernia has not recurred following surgical repair in 2013. Therefore, a compensable rating is not warranted for residuals of left inguinal hernia repair. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114, Diagnostic Code 7338. 2. Scar associated with Left Inguinal Hernia Repair The report of a June 2015 VA examination indicated that the Veteran had a surgical scar associated with an in-service left inguinal hernia repair. The scar measured 5.5 cm x 0.5 cm. The examiner indicated that the scar was not painful and/or unstable, and was not greater than 39 square cm. A review of the record does not indicate that the Veteran has any functional impairment related to the scar. In this case, a compensable rating is not warranted for the Veteran’s scar because the scar is not painful and/or unstable, does not measure more than 39 square cm., and does not result in any functional impairment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7801-7805. REASONS FOR REMAND On his July 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD), the Veteran noted that the RO had not considered or retrieved his Naval Hospital records from Camp Lejeune. In an April 2016 memorandum, the VA Records Management Center indicated that it had sent all available service treatment records. However, service treatment records do not typically include inpatient records (clinical records) from military treatment facilities. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to that an attempt can be made to obtain any separately stored inpatient records from the Naval Hospital at Camp Lejeune. Regarding the claim for a bilateral foot disability, a January 2012 service treatment record indicates that the Veteran was treated for a foot strain. Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any foot disability that may be present. Regarding the claim for an increased rating for right lateral collateral ligament sprain, the most recent VA examination report does not include detailed range of motion findings or findings regarding functional loss, per the recent precedential decisions of Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), and Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). Therefore, the Board finds that a remand is necessary for an additional VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should attempt to obtain any separately stored inpatient treatment records (clinical records) from the Naval Hospital at Camp Lejeune. 2. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an examiner with appropriate expertise to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed bilateral foot disability. Any indicated studies should be performed. Based on the examination results and a review of the record, the examiner should identify all foot disabilities that are present. The examiner should also provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or better) that any currently present right or left foot disability is etiologically related to his active service. A rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 4. Then, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the current level of severity of all impairment resulting from his service-connected right lateral collateral ligament sprain. All indicated tests should be performed and all findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should provide all information required for rating purposes, to specifically include range of motion in active motion, passive motion, weight bearing, and non-weight 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 clearly explain why that is so. The examiner must report whether there is a lack of normal endurance or functional loss due to pain and pain on use, including that experienced during flare ups; whether there is weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination; and the effects of the service-connected disability on the Veteran’s ordinary activity. The examiner should also ask the Veteran to identify the severity, frequency, duration, precipitating and alleviating factors, and extent of functional impairment resulting from flare-ups. The examiner should identify the extent of the Veteran’s functional loss during flare-ups and offer range of motion estimates based on that information. If the examiner cannot provide any of the requested findings without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state why that is so and provide a detailed rationale as to the reason why the requested findings could not be provided. 5. Confirm that the VA examination reports and all opinions provided comport with this remand and undertake any other development found to be warranted. 6. Then, readjudicate the remaining issues on appeal. If a decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Mishalanie, Counsel