Citation Nr: 18150108 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/14/18 DOCKET NO. 07-34 082 DATE: November 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 14, 2013, for the grant of an increased evaluation of 30 percent for the service-connected pes planus, bilateral is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to June 14, 2010, for a grant of service connection for the Veteran’s tinnitus to include whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the November 1977 rating decision is denied. Entitlement to a rating excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability is denied. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral pes planus is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for tinea versicolor with acne is remanded. Entitlement to a total rating based on individual employability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) for the period prior to December 19, 2012, is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There was no formal or informal claim for an increased rating for bilateral pes planus prior to January 14, 2013. 2. The Veteran first filed a claim for service connection for tinnitus in June 2010. 3. The November 1977 decision was supported by the evidence then of record; and it is not shown that the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions existing at that time were incorrectly applied, such that they involved undebatable error that would have led to a materially different outcome. 4. The Veteran’s right knee does not exhibit signs or symptoms of ankylosis, instability, subluxation, or a tibia/fibula impairment. 5. The Veteran’s right knee ranges of motion do not show that the Veteran has ever been found to have flexion limited to 30 degrees or extension limited to 15 degrees. 6. The Veteran’s left knee does not exhibit signs or symptoms of ankylosis, instability, subluxation, or a tibia/fibula impairment. 7. The Veteran’s left knee recorded ranges do not show that the Veteran has ever been found to have flexion limited to 30 degrees or extension limited to 15 degrees. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 14, 2013, for the grant of an increased evaluation of 30 percent for the service-connected pes planus, bilateral have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.151, 3.155, 3.157, 3.400 (2017) 2. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 14, 2010, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus, to include whether clear and mistakeable error had occurred, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5109A (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.105(a) (2017). 3. The criteria for entitlement to a rating excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.7, 4.27, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261 (2017). 4. The criteria for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.7, 4.27, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from September 1965 to September 1968 and from June 1973 to June 1977. These matters come before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2010 and January 2014 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The Veteran presented testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2012. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims folder. In September 2012, the case came before the Board and the Board granted a claim for an increased rating for PTSD and reopened the claim of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In addition, the Board remanded the Veteran’s right and left knee claims and earlier effective date for service connection for tinnitus. In November 2016, the case returned to the Board and the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss. In addition, the Board remanded the Veteran’s right and left knee claims, skin condition claim, and the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for tinnitus. Earlier Effective Date 1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 14, 2013, for the grant of an increased evaluation of 30 percent for the service-connected pes planus, bilateral The Veteran contends that his bilateral pes planus claim should have been awarded an earlier effective date. The method of determining the effective date of an increased evaluation is set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) and (b)(2), and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o). The general rule with respect to the effective date of an award of increased compensation is that the effective date of such award “shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application thereof.” 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). This statutory provision is implemented by regulation which provides that the effective date for an award of increased compensation will be the date of receipt of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1). An exception to the rule applies, however, under circumstances where evidence demonstrates that a factually ascertainable increase in disability occurred within the one-year period preceding the date of receipt of a claim for increased compensation. In that regard, the law provides that the effective date of the award “shall be the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if application is received within one year from such date, otherwise the date of receipt of the claim.” 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). The phrase “otherwise, date of receipt of claim” applies only if a factually ascertainable increase in disability occurred more than one year prior to filing the claim for an increased rating. Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125 (1997). Moreover, the term “increase” as used in 38 U.S.C. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R § 3.400 means an increase to the next disability level. See Hazan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 511 (1997). The Veteran contends that his disability deserves an earlier effective date because he believes that his disability has met the criteria for a 30 percent rating from October 15, 2003, which is the date that he was initially awarded a 10 percent rating. In this case, the Board granted a 10 percent rating for this condition in February 2007. In March 2007, a rating decision was prepared to implement the Board’s decision. Subsequently, the Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the appeal was vacated and remanded back to the Board for further action. In April 26, 2010, the Board once again denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for this condition. The Veteran did not appeal that decision and it became final. On January 14, 2013, VA received a claim for an increase in this condition. In January 2014, the RO issued a rating decision that increased the Veteran’s condition from 10 percent to 30 percent effective from the date the claim was received on January 14, 2013. In sum, the Board finds that an earlier effective date for an increased rating for bilateral pes planus is not warranted. The Board has reached this conclusion because the first evidence that it is factually ascertainable to support an increased rating for this condition is the date of the January 2014 VA examination that the Veteran attended regarding this issue. Thus, the date of receipt of the January 2013 claim is the effective date for the increased rating claim. As the preponderance of the evidence is against an effective date earlier than January 14, 2013, the claim must be denied. 2. Entitlement to an earlier effective date of service connection for tinnitus to include whether clear and unmistakable error occurred in the November 1977 Rating Decision The Veteran appears to argue that despite the fact that there was no formal claim for tinnitus, the RO should have construed his statements at the 1977 VA examination as an informal claim. Unless Chapter 38 of the United States Code specifically provides otherwise, the effective date of an evaluation and grant of pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2017). An earlier effective date may be granted prior to the date of the filing of the claim for a rating increase if it is ascertainable that an increase in disability occurred within one year prior to the filing of the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (b)(2) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) (2017). The effective date for a grant of service connection is the day following the date of separation from active service or the date entitlement arose, if the claim is received within one year after separation from active service; otherwise date of receipt of claim, or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i) (2017). A “claim” is a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) (2017). “Date of receipt” of a claim, information, or evidence means the date on which a claim, information, or evidence was received by VA. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(r) (2017). Any documented communication from, or action by, a Veteran indicating intent to apply for a benefit under laws administered by VA may be considered an informal claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (b) (2017). To determine when a claim was received, the Board must review all communications in the claims file that may be construed as an application or claim. See Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992). While VA must interpret a claimant’s submissions broadly, VA is not required to conjure up issues not raised by claimant. VA is not required to anticipate any potential claim for a particular benefit where no intention to raise it was expressed. Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998); Talbert v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 352, 356-57 (1995). Moreover, the effective date of an award of service connection is not based upon the date of the earliest medical evidence demonstrating entitlement, but on the date that the application upon which service connection was eventually awarded was received by VA. See Lalonde v. West, 12 Vet. App. 377 (1999); see also MacPhee v. Nicholson, 459 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In addition, once a decision becomes final, it may only be revised by a showing of clear and unmistakable error. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.105. Clear and unmistakable error is recognized to be a very specific and rare kind of error of fact or law that compels the undebatable conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result in the decision in question would have been manifestly different but for the error. Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 43 (1993). As such, to establish clear and unmistakable error, a claimant must assert more than a mere disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated. Eddy v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 52 (1996); see also Bustos v. West, 179 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir.) (expressly holding that in order to prove the existence of clear and unmistakable error, a claimant must show that an error occurred that was outcome-determinative, that is, an error that would manifestly have changed the outcome of the prior decision); Hines v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 227, 235 (2004). In Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 245 (1994), the Court explained that in order for clear and unmistakable error to exist: (1) “[e]ither the correct facts, as they were known at that time, were not before the adjudicator (i.e., more than a simple disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated), or the statutory or regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied,” (2) the error must be “undebatable” and the sort “which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time it was made,” and (3) a determination that there was clear and unmistakable error must be based on the record and law that existed at the time of the prior adjudication in question. See also Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313 (1992). When attempting to raise a claim of clear and unmistakable error, a claimant must describe the alleged error with some degree of specificity, and provide persuasive reasons as to why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error. See Fugo, 6 Vet. App. at 43. Where evidence establishes clear and unmistakable error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). For the purpose of authorizing benefits, the rating or other adjudicative decision which constitutes a reversal of a prior decision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error has the same effect as if the corrected decision had been made on the date of the reversed decision. Id. In this case, the Veteran essentially contends that he was diagnosed with tinnitus during a VA examination for hearing loss in 1977 and therefore should be awarded service connection from that date. As to the Veteran’s argument regarding CUE, at the time of the November 1977 rating decision a claim was defined as “a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p). In turn, the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran filed a formal claim for tinnitus at that time nor does the Veteran contend that he sent a formal or informal communication to VA expressing his intent to file a claim for service connection for tinnitus. In fact, a review of the record indicates that the Veteran did not discuss tinnitus when he filed a notice of disagreement with the November 1977 Rating Decision which denied service connection for defective hearing. Moreover, the Board notes that the Veteran first filed a claim for service connection for tinnitus in June 2010. In addition, the Board notes that at the time of the November 1977 rating decision, there was no statutory duty to assist imposed on VA. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Moreover, even if there was, a breach of a duty to assist cannot constitute clear and unmistakable error. Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1345-47 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In sum, the Board finds that an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for tinnitus is not warranted. The Board has considered the Veteran’s contentions; however, the Board finds that the Veteran failed to establish that the RO committed CUE in the November 1977 rating decision. After a review of the record, the Board finds that the November 1977 rating decision, which was a final rating decision, was reasonably supported by the correct evidence of record at that time and was consistent with the laws and regulations then in effect. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran fails to establish factual or legal error rising to the level of clear and unmistakable error in the November 1977 decision which denied entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and failed to consider his reported symptoms of tinnitus. Hence, the criteria have not been met for reversing or revising that prior decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error. Moreover, there is no document associated with the record that can be construed as a claim for service connection for tinnitus prior to June 14, 2010. Thus, the Veteran’s claim for an effective date prior to June 14, 2010, must be denied. Increased Rating The Veteran contends that his right and left knee disabilities warrant increased ratings. A disability rating is determined by the application of VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and their residual conditions in civil occupations. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations that are potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusions. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses, known as pyramiding, is generally to be avoided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (2015). The critical element in permitting the assignment of several ratings under various diagnostic codes is that none of the symptomatology for any one of the disabilities is duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other disability. See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994). The Board will consider whether separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, a practice known as “staged ratings.” Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-27 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). In considering the evidence in any given appeal, it is the responsibility of the Board to weigh the evidence and decide where to give credit and where to withhold the same and, in so doing, accept certain medical opinions over others. Schoolman v. West, 12 Vet. App. 307, 310-11 (1999). In this regard, the Board has been charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002); Klekar v. West, 12 Vet. App. 503, 507 (1999); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Indeed, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to do so. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992). In doing so, the Board is free to favor one medical opinion over another, provided it offers an adequate basis for doing so. Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 30 (1998); Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429, 433 (1995). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When all of the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 3. Entitlement to a rating excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability The Veteran filed for an increased rating in excess of 10 percent in June 2010. The Veteran’s knee disabilities were rated according to Diagnostic Codes 5003-5260. Hyphenated diagnostic codes are used when a rating under one diagnostic code requires use of an additional diagnostic code to identify the basis for the evaluation assigned; the additional code is shown after the hyphen. 38 C.F.R. §4.27 (2017). When evaluating joint disabilities rated on the basis of limitation of motion, VA must consider granting a higher rating in cases in which functional loss due to pain, weakness, excess fatigability, or incoordination is demonstrated, and those factors are not considered to be contemplated in the relevant rating criteria. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59; DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). Recently, the Court clarified that although pain may be a cause or manifestation of functional loss, limitation of motion due to pain is not necessarily rated at the same level as functional loss where motion is impeded. See Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011); cf. Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 34 (1999); Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 417, 421 (1995); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 592 (1991). Instead, the Mitchell Court explained that pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45, the possible manifestations of functional loss include decreased or abnormal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, or endurance, as well as less or more movement than is normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and pain on movement (including swelling, deformity, and atrophy) that affects stability, standing, and weight-bearing. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45. Thus, functional loss caused by pain must be rated at the same level as if the functional loss were caused by any of the other factors cited above. Therefore, in evaluating the severity of a joint disability, VA must determine the overall functional impairment due to these factors. For the purposes of this decision, the Board notes that the average normal range of motion of the knee is flexion from 0 to 140 degrees and extension from 140 to 0 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71. The words “slight,” “moderate” and “severe” as used in the various Diagnostic Codes are not defined in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Rather than applying a mechanical formula, the Board must evaluate all of the evidence for “equitable and just decisions.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.6. Arthritis under Diagnostic Code 5010 is to be rated on limitation of motion of the affected part as degenerative arthritis. Under Diagnostic Code 5003, degenerative arthritis established by X-ray findings will be rated on the basis of limitation of motion under the appropriate diagnostic codes for the specific joints involved. When, however, the limitation of motion of the specific joint or joints involved is noncompensable under the appropriate diagnostic codes, a rating of 10 percent is for application for each such major joint or group of minor joints affected by limitation of motion, to be combined, not added under DC 5003. Limitation of motion must be objectively confirmed by findings such as swelling, muscle spasm, or satisfactory evidence of painful motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Disabilities of the knee are rated under DC 5256 through DC 5263 of 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a (2016). Diagnostic Code 5256 addresses ankylosis of the knee and authorizes ratings between 30 and 60 percent. Diagnostic Code 5257 provides ratings for recurrent subluxation or lateral instability. A slight disability warrants a 10 percent rating and a moderate disability warrants a 20 percent rating. A severe disability warrants a 30 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5257 (2017). Diagnostic Code 5258 provides that a 20 percent rating is warranted for dislocated semilunar cartilage with frequent episodes of “locking,” pain, and effusion into the joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5258 (2017). Diagnostic Code 5259 provides for a 10 percent rating for symptomatic residuals of removal of a semilunar cartilage. Ratings under DC 5259 require consideration of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 because removal of a semilunar cartilage may result in complications producing loss of motion. VAOGCPREC 9-98. Diagnostic Code 5260 provides ratings based on limitation of flexion of the leg. Limitation of flexion to 60 degrees warrants a non-compensable rating. Limitation of flexion to 45 degrees warrants a 10 percent rating. Flexion limited to 30 degrees warrants a 20 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260 (2017). Under Diagnostic Code 5261, a non-compensable rating will be assigned for limitation of extension of the leg to 5 degrees. A 10 percent rating will be assigned for limitation of extension of the leg to 10 degrees. A 20 percent rating will be assigned for limitation of extension of the leg to 15 degrees. A 30 percent rating will be assigned for limitation of extension of the leg to 20 degrees. A 40 percent rating will be assigned for limitation of extension of the leg to 30 degrees and a 50 percent rating will be assigned for limitation of extension of the leg to 45 degrees. Diagnostic Code 5262 provides ratings for impairment of the tibia and fibula. A 10 percent rating is warranted for malunion with slight knee or ankle disability. A 20 percent rating is warranted for malunion with moderate knee or ankle disability. A 30 percent rating is warranted for malunion with marked knee or ankle disability. A 40 percent rating is warranted for nonunion with loose motion and requiring a brace. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5262 (2017). As to a current diagnosis, the Veteran’s right knee disability has been diagnosed as right knee osteoarthritis. See June 2018 VA examination. As to the Veteran’s lay statements, the Veteran testified that he has pain when he walks or when he has to make lateral movements. The Veteran also testified that he feels that he loses balance when he is carrying something. Lastly, the Veteran testified that he feels that his knees will buckle if he “gets up or stops quickly.” Turning to the medical evidence at hand, in July 2010, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. The examiner reported that the Veteran’s right knee was stable in terms of patellar instability and knee instability on stress testing. The examiner also reported that there was no valgus or varus deformity. The examiner also reported that there was no crepitation. The examiner added that the Veteran’s right knee extension was 0 degrees on three repeats without pain, weakness, fatigability or loss of coordination. Lastly, the examiner reported that the Veteran’s right knee flexion was 135 degrees on three repeats without pain, weakness, fatigability or loss of coordination. In March 2014, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s right knee flexion was 140 degrees or greater, there was no limitation of extension, and no objective evidence of painful motion. Lastly, the examiner reported that the Veteran’s knee had normal stability and there was no evidence of subluxation or dislocation. In November 2014, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. The examiner reported that that the Veteran had reported no flare-ups and he exhibited normal knee flexion and extension. In addition, the examiner reported that the Veteran did not have signs of ankylosis, instability, subluxation, or a tibia/fibula impairment. In August 2015, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. The examiner reported right knee flexion from 0 to 130 degrees and extension from 130 to 0 degrees. The examiner also reported that the Veteran did not have any signs of any ankylosis, instability, subluxation, or a tibia/fibula impairment. In June 2018, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. The examiner reported that the Veteran’s right knee flexion was 0 to 135 degrees and extension was 135 to 0 degrees. The examiner noted that there was pain noted on examination that caused functional loss and there was no evidence of pain with weight bearing. The examiner also reported that the Veteran did not report any flare-ups. Lastly, the examiner reported that the Veteran did not have any signs of any ankylosis, subluxation, instability, or a tibia/fibula impairment. In sum, the Board finds that the Veteran’s condition has remained consistent and that a rating increase or separate compensable rating is not warranted. The Board has reached this conclusion because the recorded ranges of motion for the right knee do not show that the Veteran has ever been found to have flexion limited to 30 degrees or extension limited to 15 degrees. In addition, the evidence does not show that the Veteran’s right knee exhibits a cartilage condition or genu recurvatum. Moreover, the evidence does not show that the Veteran’s right knee condition exhibits symptoms of ankylosis, moderate recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, or a malunion of the tibia and fibula. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the Veteran’s right knee symptoms; however, the findings by the medical personnel in this case outweigh the Veteran’s contentions regarding the severity of his knee. For the above stated reasons, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability, must be denied. 4. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability The Veteran filed for an increased rating in June 2010. As to a current diagnosis, the Veteran’s left knee disability has been diagnosed as left knee osteoarthritis. See June 2018 VA examination. As to the Veteran’s lay statements, the Veteran testified that he has pain when he walks or when he has to make lateral movements. The Veteran also testified that he feels that he loses balance when he is carrying something. Lastly, the Veteran testified that he feels that his knees will buckle if he “gets up or stops quickly.” Turning to the medical evidence at hand, in July 2010, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. The examiner reported that on the left side there was a slight degree of patellar laxity side to side. The examiner reported that the knee joint itself was not laxed on stress testing. The examiner reported that there was no valgus or varus deformity. The examiner added that the Veteran’s left knee extension was 0 degrees on three repeats without pain, weakness, fatigability or loss of coordination. Lastly, the examiner reported that the Veteran’s left knee flexion was 135 degrees on three repeats without pain, weakness, fatigability, or loss of coordination. In March 2014, the Veteran attended an examination for this issue. The examiner reported that left knee flexion was 140 degrees or greater with no objective evidence of painful motion. The examiner also reported that the Veteran had no limitation of extension. Lastly, the examiner reported the Veteran had normal stability and no evidence of subluxation or dislocation. In November 2014, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. The examiner reported that that the Veteran had reported no flare-ups and he exhibited normal knee flexion and extension. In addition, the examiner reported that the Veteran did not have signs of ankylosis, instability, subluxation, or a tibia/fibula impairment. In August 2015, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. The examiner reported left knee flexion from 0 to 130 degrees and extension from 130 to 0 degrees. The examiner also reported that the Veteran did not have any signs of any ankylosis, instability, subluxation, or a tibia/fibula impairment. In June 2018, the Veteran attended a VA examination for this issue. The examiner reported the Veteran’s left knee flexion was 0 to 135 degrees and extension was 135 to 0 degrees. The examiner reported pain noted on examination that caused functional loss and there was no evidence of pain with weight bearing. The examiner added that the Veteran did not report any flare-ups. Lastly, the examiner reported that there were no signs of ankylosis, subluxation, instability, or a tibia/fibula impairment. In sum, the Board finds that the Veteran’s condition has remained consistent and that a rating increase or separate compensable rating is not warranted. The Board has reached this conclusion because the recorded ranges of motion for the left knee do not reflect that the Veteran has ever been found to have flexion limited to 30 degrees or extension limited to 15 degrees. In addition, the evidence does not show that the Veteran’s left knee exhibits a cartilage condition or genu recurvatum. Moreover, the evidence does not show that the Veteran’s left knee condition exhibits symptoms of ankylosis, moderate recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, or a malunion of the tibia and fibula. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the Veteran’s left knee symptoms; however, the findings by the medical personnel in this case outweigh the Veteran’s contentions regarding the severity of his knee. For the above stated reasons, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability, must be denied. Extra Considerations-Right and Left Knee Disabilities. The Board finds that the Veteran has not raised the matter of an extraschedular rating and that the evidence does not present exceptional or unusual circumstances. Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (holding that either a Veteran must assert that a schedular rating is inadequate or the evidence must present exceptional or unusual circumstances). As such, no further action as to this matter is required. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, it is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claims so that he is afforded every possible consideration. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for bilateral pes planus is remanded. As to the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for his bilateral pes planus, the Board notes that the Veteran was last evaluated for this disability in October 2014 and the available medical records do not contain sufficient information to adequately evaluate the Veteran’s pes planus disability. Accordingly, VA’s duty to assist includes providing a new medical examination when the available evidence is too old for an adequate evaluation of the current condition and the disability may have worsened. Thus, for the above stated reasons, the Board finds a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a contemporaneous examination to determine the current severity of his disability. See Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 526 (1995) (indicating that, where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of the claimant’s disability, fulfillment of the statutory duty to assist requires a contemporaneous medical examination, particularly if there is no additional medical evidence that adequately addresses the level of impairment of the disability since the previous examination). 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for tinea versicolor with acne (skin disability) As to the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for a skin disability, the Board notes that the Veteran was last evaluated for this disability in August 2015 and the available medical records do not contain sufficient information to adequately evaluate the Veteran’s skin disability. Accordingly, VA’s duty to assist includes providing a new medical examination when the available evidence is too old for an adequate evaluation of the current condition and the disability may have worsened. Thus, for the above stated reasons, the Board finds a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a contemporaneous examination to determine the current severity of his disability. Allday; supra. 3. Entitlement to a total rating based on individual employability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) The Board notes that the Veteran was awarded TDIU in 2012; however, the Veteran’s increased rating claims predate his application for TDIU. The Board notes that in Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that a claim for a TDIU is part of an increased rating claim when such claim is expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record. The Board finds that the issue of TDIU has been reasonably raised by the record and is properly before the Board by virtue of the increased rating claim hereto, pursuant to Rice. In view of the foregoing, it is necessary to remand the TDIU issue prior to December 2012 to the RO for adjudication. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records from July 27, 2018. 2. Schedule the Veteran for VA examinations in order to determine the severity of his bilateral pes planus and skin disabilities. 3. The RO should take all necessary steps to properly decide the Veteran’s claim for TDIU prior to December 19, 2012. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Rescan, Associate Cousel