Citation Nr: 18155574 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 15-21 512 DATE: December 4, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a right wrist disability is remanded. Entitlement to an increased compensable disability rating for hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1985 to January 1992 and from November 2001 to June 2004. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision of a of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), but withdrew that request in an October 2016 written statement. The record reflects that the RO scheduled an October 2018 videoconference hearing, and that the RO contacted the Veteran by telephone regarding the October 2018 hearing. The Veteran did not appear at the October 2018 videoconference hearing. 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a right wrist disability is remanded. The Veteran last attended a VA examination for his service-connected right wrist disability in January 2016. However, since the Veteran’s VA examination, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held “that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 creates a requirement that certain range of motion testing be conducted whenever possible in cases of joint disabilities.” Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). The Court also stated that in order “to be adequate, a VA examination of the joints must, wherever possible, include the results of the range of motion testing described in the final sentence of § 4.59.” Id. at 169-70. In order to comply with the Court’s ruling in Correia, a new examination should be obtained on remand that addresses the Court’s directive. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (when VA undertakes to provide a medical examination, it must ensure that the examination and opinions therein are adequate). 2. Entitlement to an increased disability rating for hypertension is remanded. The Veteran last attended a VA examination for his hypertension disability in January 2016. VA treatment records continue to reference an outside physician. The most recent records from R.S., M.D. are from 2014. On remand updated records should be obtained. As the Veteran last attended a VA examination over two years ago and there is an indication that the disabilities on appeal may have increased in severity, the Board finds it necessary to remand the claim for a contemporaneous examination to ensure that VA meets its duty to assist. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4)(i) (2017); see Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997) (indicating that a Veteran is entitled to a new examination after a two-year period between the last VA examination and the veteran’s contention that the pertinent disability had increased in severity); see also Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991) (holding that VA’s statutory duty to assist includes a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 90, 93 (1990) (noting that remand may be required if the record before the Board contains insufficient medical information for evaluation purposes). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for R.S., M.D. and any other physician who treated him for his claimed conditions. Make two requests for the authorized records from the identified facilities, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his right wrist disability. The examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner must also attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the Veteran’s right wrist disability alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s right wrist disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected hypertension disability. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the Veteran’s hypertension disability alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s hypertension disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Boal, Associate Counsel