Citation Nr: 18152106
Decision Date: 11/20/18	Archive Date: 11/20/18

DOCKET NO. 16-47 663
DATE:	November 20, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected status post excision of ganglion cyst of the left wrist with mild residual scarring (left wrist disability) is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served in the United States Coast Guard from January 2002 to December 2006.
Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left wrist disability is remanded.
In the Veteran’s September 2016 Form 9, he stated that his left wrist disability has increased in pain and decreased his range of motion, which causes issues with performing daily duties and yard work.  Additionally, the Veteran asserts that VA has not met its duty to assist.  Specifically, the Veteran stated that his left wrist has not been tested for pain on both active and passive motion, or in weight-bearing or nonweight-bearing activities.
While the record contains VA examinations regarding the Veteran’s left wrist disability, the examinations do not comply with the requirements in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016).  In Correia, the U. S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2016) requires that VA examinations include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing, and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint.  Thus, the Court’s holding in Correia establishes additional requirements that must be met prior to finding that a VA examination is adequate.  As the Veteran has not been provided with a wrist examination that meets the Correia requirements, a remand is necessary to provide one. 
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1. Schedule the Veteran to undergo a VA joints examination by an appropriate medical professional to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s left wrist disability. The claims file should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner.
Full range of motion testing must be performed where possible. The wrist involved should be tested in both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing and, if possible, with range of the opposite wrist joint (if it is undamaged).  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 the basis for this decision.
If the Veteran reports flare-up episodes, the examiner must assess any additional functional loss during flare-ups.  If an assessment is not possible without resorting to speculation based on the fact that the examination was not performed during a flare-up, the examiner must “[E]licit relevant information as to the veteran’s flares or ask him to describe the additional functional loss, if any, he suffered during flares and then estimate the veteran’s functional loss due to flares based on all the evidence of record, including the veteran’s lay information, or explain why [he or] she c[an] not do so” and whether this is due to the examiner’s knowledge or that of the medical community in general.  Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017).
All pertinent symptomatology and findings must be reported in detail.
2. Then, readjudicate the claim.  If any decision is unfavorable to the Veteran, issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and allow the applicable time for response.  Then, return the case to the Board.
 
D. Martz Ames
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Fowler, Associate Counsel