Citation Nr: 18153836 Decision Date: 11/29/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 14-43 517 DATE: November 29, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right shoulder, status post acromial decompression surgery (right shoulder disability), is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the thoracic spine, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 2002 to May 2013. In July 2018, the Veteran was afforded a Board hearing at the regional office (RO). A transcript of the hearing is of record. At the July 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran reported that his right shoulder disability and DDD of the thoracic spine had worsened since his last VA examination in March 2013. For his right shoulder disability, the Veteran reported that he experienced throbbing and stabbing pain in his right shoulder. The Veteran also reported that his shoulder popped significantly. The Veteran also reported a grinding noise when moving his shoulder and that he was unable to make various motions with his shoulder. As for his DDD of the thoracic spine, the Veteran reported that he experienced flare-ups more frequently since his previous examination in March 2013. Additionally, the Veteran reported that his physician recommended surgery for his thoracic spine; however, surgery was not performed due to the location of the pain and the significant risk of making symptoms worse. A veteran is entitled to a new VA examination where there is evidence that the condition has worsened since the last examination. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Because the Veteran claims worsening of his right shoulder disability and DDD of thoracic spine since his last VA examination, VA’s duty to assist requires a “thorough and contemporaneous” medical examination. Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994). Even if the Veteran had not asserted worsening of his right shoulder disability and DDD of thoracic spine, a remand would still be necessary given the inadequacy of the March 2013 examination report. Since the examination, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) provided a precedential interpretation of the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. 4.59, and held that the sentence created a requirement that certain range of motion testing be conducted whenever possible in cases of joint disabilities. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). The Board interprets the Court’s decision as requiring that VA examinations must include range of motion testing of the pertinent joint in active motion, passive motion, and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. Here, the March 2013 examination report does not include a discussion of active motion, passive motion, and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing tests for either claim on appeal. As such, a remand is warranted to schedule the Veteran for new VA examinations for his right shoulder disability and DDD of thoracic spine. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for appropriate VA examinations to assess the orthopedic manifestations of the Veteran’s service-connected right shoulder disability and DDD of thoracic spine. Regarding the orthopedic manifestations for both the right shoulder disability and DDD of the thoracic spine, the examiner is asked to indicate the point during range of motion testing that motion is limited by pain. The examiner should also test the range of motion of the back and of both shoulders in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-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 should describe any presence of, and the extent of any, functional loss due to weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, or pain on use, and should state whether any pain is supported by adequate pathology, e.g., muscle spasm, and is evidenced by his visible behavior, e.g., facial expression or wincing, on pressure or manipulation. The examiner should express an opinion as to whether pain or other manifestations occurring during flare-ups or with repeated use could significantly limit functional ability of the affected parts. The examiner should portray the degree of any additional range of motion loss due to pain on use or during flare-ups. JAMES L. MARCH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Hammad Rasul, Associate Counsel