Citation Nr: 18155409 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 09-13 213 DATE: December 4, 2018 REMANDED ISSUES Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 10 percent for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 10 percent for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 10 percent for a right hip disability, diagnosed as residuals of a right femoral neck stress fracture, is remanded. Introduction The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1992 to May 1993. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2007 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. In July 2012, the Board remanded this case for additional development. The case was again remanded in July 2014, October 2015, and August 2016, due to issues related to scheduling the Veteran’s requested hearing. In October 2016, the Veteran and her husband testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. The case was again remanded by the Board in September 2017 for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. REASONS FOR REMAND In its September 2017 remand, the Board observed that the Veteran’s last VA examination addressing her bilateral knee and right hip disabilities took place in April 2007, and that the evidence indicated the disabilities may have worsened since then. As such, the Board remanded the case for provision of VA examinations to assess the severity of the Veteran’s disabilities. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2017. Unfortunately, the examiner noted that the Veteran “used strength to prevent” the range of motion portion of her examination. The examiner stated the Veteran’s passive observed range of motion was normal, but determined that all range of motion testing results would have to be ignored for rating purposes. The Board notes that VA’s duty to assist a veteran in developing the facts and evidence pertinent to his or her claim is not a one-way street. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). It is the responsibility of veterans to cooperate with VA. See Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 383 (1994); Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480, 483 (1992). Under these circumstances, the Board finds a remand is warranted in order to afford the Veteran a final opportunity for a VA examination. The Veteran will be instructed that it is her responsibility to report for any scheduled VA examination and to cooperate with regard to each portion of the examination, and that the consequences of failure to do so without good cause may include denial of her claims. The examiner will be instructed to perform the examination in such a manner as to comply with the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ recent decisions in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) and Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain any outstanding records pertinent to the Veteran’s claims. If any requested records are not available, the record should be annotated to reflect such and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the current severity of her service-connected bilateral knee and right hip disabilities. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated tests and studies should be performed. The Veteran must be notified that it is her responsibility to report for any examination scheduled, and to cooperate with each aspect of the examination, to include range of motion testing. She must be notified that the consequences for failure to do so without good cause may include denial of her claims. The examiner is directed to perform range of motion testing to determine the extent of limitation of motion due to pain on active motion and passive motion, as well as with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why this is so. The examiner should further discuss additional functional limitation of the bilateral knee and right hip disabilities with repeated movement over time and during flare-ups. Any such additional limitation of motion should be expressed in additional degrees of lost motion. The examiner must attempt to provide an estimate, even in the absence of an opportunity to observe any reported flare-up. The estimate may be based on the Veteran’s reports of limitation during such flares. The examiner must provide a rationale for any proffered opinion. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed 3. Undertake any other development determined to be warranted. (Continued on the next page)   4. Then, readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, the Veteran and her representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and be afforded the requisite opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Hampton, Associate Counsel