Citation Nr: 18152369 Decision Date: 11/21/18 Archive Date: 11/21/18 DOCKET NO. 13-04 307 DATE: November 21, 2018 REMANDED The issue of a rating of more than 10 percent since August 10, 2009, for a right knee strain is remanded. The issue of a rating of more than 40 percent for peripheral vascular disease of the lower extremities is remanded. The issue of an effective date prior to January 23, 2017, for the grant of service connection for peripheral vascular disease of the lower extremities is remanded. The issue of a rating of more than 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. The issue of a rating of more than 10 percent for type II diabetes mellitus is remanded. The issue of an effective date prior to January 23, 2017, for the grant of service connection for type II diabetes mellitus is remanded. The issue of a compensable rating for left ear hearing loss is remanded. The issue of a rating of more than 20 percent for left lower extremity peripheral vascular disease is remanded. The issue of a rating of more than 20 percent for right lower extremity peripheral vascular disease is remanded. The issue of an effective date prior to January 23, 2017, for left lower extremity peripheral vascular disease is remanded. The issue of an effective date prior to January 23, 2017, for right lower extremity peripheral vascular disease is remanded. The issue of a date prior to January 23, 2017, for the grant of a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability due to service connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the U.S. Army from July 1967 to August 1969. He served in the Republic of Vietnam and his military decorations include the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star Medal with a “V” Device, the Bronze Star Medal with First Oak Cluster, and the Army Commendation Medal with a V Device. The matters listed above are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Reasons for the remand: The Board has no discretion and must remand the issue of an increased rating for the Veteran’s right knee disorder for a new VA examination in compliance with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (Court’s) March 2018 Joint Motion for Remand which concluded that the February 2017 VA examination was inadequate because it failed to provide the specific point in the Veteran’s range of motion where pain developed as required by Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); see also Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 414, 425 (2006) (holding that the duty to ensure compliance with the Court’s order extends to the terms of the agreement struck by the Parties that forms the basis of the JMR); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). In April 2018, the Veteran submitted notices of disagreement (NODs) with the other issues on appeal. A statement of the case (SOC) addressing the NODs has not been issued to him. The Court has directed that where a veteran has submitted a timely NOD with an adverse decision and the AOJ has not subsequently issued an SOC addressing the issue, the Board should remand the issue to the AOJ for preparation of an SOC. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-241 (1999). 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA knee examination to obtain an opinion as to the current nature of his right knee disorder. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings reported in detail. All relevant medical records must be made available to the examiner for review of pertinent documents. The examination report should specifically state that such a review was conducted. The examiner must provide a comprehensive explanation for all opinions provided. The examiner must include range of motion testing in both active and passive motion and on weight bearing and non-weight-bearing for both the left and right knees. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF PAIN ON MOTION, THE EXAMINER MUST STATE THE DEGREE AT WHICH PAIN BEGINS. 3. Issue an SOC to the Veteran and his accredited representative which addresses the issues of (1) an increased rating for peripheral vascular disease of the lower extremities, (2) an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for peripheral vascular disease of the lower extremities, (3) an increased rating for PTSD, (4) an increased rating for type II diabetes mellitus, (5) an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection of type II diabetes mellitus, (6) an increased rating for left ear hearing loss, (7) an increased rating for left lower extremity peripheral vascular disease, (8) an increased rating for right lower extremity peripheral vascular disease, (9) an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for left lower extremity peripheral vascular disease, (10) an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for right lower extremity peripheral vascular disease, and (11) an earlier effective date for the grant of TDIU. The Veteran should be given the appropriate opportunity to respond to the SOC. 4. Readjudicate the issue of an increased rating for the Veteran’s right knee disorder. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. E. Miller, Associate Counsel