Citation Nr: 18155450 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 16-55 670 DATE: December 4, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected Osgood-Schlatter Disease with mild patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected Osgood-Schlatter Disease with mild patellofemoral syndrome of the right knee is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 2001 to February 2002 and from January 2003 to February 2004. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected Osgood-Schlatter Disease with mild patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected Osgood-Schlatter Disease with mild patellofemoral syndrome of the right knee is remanded. The Board finds that additional development is needed prior to final adjudication of the issues on appeal. Specifically, the Board finds that new examinations are needed in order to comply with the Court’s precedential decision of Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). In that decision, the Court found that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, created a requirement that whenever possible in the cases of joint disabilities, “[t]he joints involved should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. The Veteran’s most recent VA examination from February 2016 does not meet these specifications. For example, the examination report does not provide range of motion findings that were obtained on active versus passive motion, or range of motion findings for in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. Therefore, a new examination is needed. In addition, the Board notes that a Privacy Act Request was acknowledged by VA in correspondence dated March 2016, however, it is unclear whether the Veteran was provided the documents sought. Upon remand, the Board asks that the Veteran be sent the documents he requested, if they have not already been provided. Finally, the most recent VA Form 21-22a, signed by the Veteran in November 2017, appears incomplete. The Board notes that boxes 2-5 on the form are blank. Upon remand, a completed VA Form 21-22a (or 21-22) should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After securing any necessary consent forms from the Veteran, obtain any outstanding treatment records, to include any VA and/or private treatment records, pertaining to the issues on appeal. All efforts to obtain these records should be documented in the claim file. If any records could not be obtained, this should be noted in the claim file. In addition, the Board notes that a Privacy Act Request was acknowledged by VA in correspondence dated March 2016, however, it is unclear whether the Veteran was provided the documents sought. Upon remand, the Board asks that the Veteran be sent the documents he requested, if they have not already been provided. All efforts to comply with this directive, must be documented in the claim file. Further, the most recent VA Form 21-22a, signed by the Veteran in November 2017, is incomplete. The Board notes that boxes 2-5 on the form are blank. Upon remand, a completed VA Form 21-22 or 21-22a should be obtained. All efforts to comply with this directive, must be documented in the claim file. 2. Upon completion of the above, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to evaluate the current level of severity of his left and right knee disabilities. The claim folder and all pertinent treatment records should be made available to the examiner for review, and review of such records should be noted in any subsequent report. All necessary diagnostic testing should be performed. 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 is asked specifically to provide range of motion testing (ROM) for both knees for active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing. In addition, for both knees the examiner must discuss pain for ROM movements on active, passive, and repetitive use testing. The examiner is asked to address the following questions: (a) Are any ROM movements painful on active, passive, and repetitive use testing? If yes, identify whether active, passive, and repetitive use. (b) If yes (there are painful movements), does the pain contribute to functional loss or additional limitation of ROM? Please further describe the functional loss or additional limitation of ROM. (c) If no (the pain does not contribute to functional loss or additional limitation of ROM), explain why the pain does not contribute. In addition, for both knees the examiner must discuss pain when used in weight-bearing or in nonweight-bearing. The examiner is asked to address the following questions: (a) Is there pain when the joint is used in weight-bearing or nonweight-bearing? If yes, identify whether weight-bearing or nonweight-bearing. (b) If yes (there is pain when used in weight-bearing or nonweight-bearing), does the pain contribute to functional loss or additional limitation of ROM? Please further describe these limitations. (c) If no (the pain does not contribute to functional loss or additional limitation of ROM), explain why the pain does not contribute. 3. If upon completion of the above action the issues are denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Foster, Associate Counsel