Citation Nr: 18156321 Decision Date: 12/07/18 Archive Date: 12/07/18 DOCKET NO. 15-04 278 DATE: December 7, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating for total left knee arthroplasty (previously rated as retropatellar pain syndrome), currently evaluated as 10 percent prior to January 1, 2019, and 60 percent thereafter, is remanded. (Temporary total disability ratings are in effect from November 29, 2011 to March 1, 2012, April 12, 2013 to July 1, 2013, July 28, 2015 to October 1, 2015, March 7, 2017 to June 1, 2017, and November 13, 2017 to January 1, 2019.) REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from January 1997 to February 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 2011 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia. Jurisdiction currently resides with the RO in Montgomery, Alabama. In May 2018, the Board remanded this matter for further development to include an examination compliant with the holding in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). Although the Board regrets the additional delay, VA has not substantially complied with the Board’s remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In Correia, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) 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. The final sentence of that section provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he joints involved should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing....” Correia, 28 Vet. App. at 164. The Court found that, 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 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. Id. at 168-69. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2018. The examiner conducted range of motion testing for the left knee, but did not specify whether it was on active or passive motion, and in weight-bearing or nonweight-bearing. The examiner remarked that there is objective evidence of pain on passive range of motion, and no objective evidence of pain when the joint is used in nonweight-bearing. However, the examiner did not include results of the indicated range of motion testing, as required by 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. Thus, remand is necessary for a VA examination that tests for pain and includes results of range of motion testing on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing, and if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint. The Veteran receives VA treatment for the disability at issue on appeal; therefore, all outstanding VA treatment records should be procured. Accordingly, the issue is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from August 2018 to the present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of her service-connected left knee disability. The claims file must be made available for review and the examiner must note that a review was completed. All indicated testing should be completed. The examiner must address the following: a) Pursuant to Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), and 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2016), the examination should record the left knee range of motion and test for pain in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing, for both the joint in question and the paired joint if undamaged. If the examiner is unable to conduct required testing, the examiner should clearly explain why such testing is impossible. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and her representative with a supplemental state of the case. After allowing an appropriate period for response, return the appeal to the Board for review. M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Reed, Associate Counsel