Citation Nr: 18157026 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 18-51 702 DATE: December 11, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative joint disease (DJD), left knee status post arthroscopic plica excision with arthroscopic chondroplasty retropatellar surface (left knee DJD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 2006 to April 2009. In his October 2018 Substantive Appeal (VA Form 9), the Veteran, through his representative, requested an examination to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s left knee DJD. The Board notes that the Veteran’s last examination was in May 2014, i.e., prior to his surgery. Therefore, the Veteran should be afforded an examination to determine the current severity of his left knee DJD. Additionally, the Veteran stated that he is entitled to a separate 20 percent evaluation under DC 5258 based on medical evidence showing mucoid degeneration of the medial meniscus that causes popping, pain, and stiffness. He stated that the condition should be rated as analogous to dislocation of the semilunar cartilage. Additionally, he stated that his May 2016 operative report noted “obviously loose articular cartilage was removed” and the pre-operative diagnosis was pathological medial plica and chondromalacia patella of the left knee. He further stated that “these diagnoses affect the functionality of the left knee. Furthermore, the conditions share the same anatomical localization and symptomatology are closely analogous.” On remand, the VA examiner should clarify whether the Veteran’s degeneration of the medial meniscus and pre-operative left knee diagnoses are analogous to dislocation of semilunar cartilage. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate all outstanding VA and private treatment records with the claims file. 2. Thereafter, schedule a VA examination to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected left knee DJD. The complete record, to include a copy of this remand and the claims folder, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examination report must include a notation that this record review took place. All indicated studies, including x-rays, range of motion (ROM) studies in degrees must be conducted, and all findings must be reported in detail. To the extent possible, the examiner is asked to opine as to the ROM and note any pain (and the point during ROM that pain is reported), pain on use, weakness, incoordination, or excess fatigability. In accordance with Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), the ROM for the Veteran’s left knee DJD should be tested on active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing, and after repetitive use. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s lay statements. The examiner should also express an opinion concerning whether there would be additional functional impairment on repeated use or during flare-ups. The examiner should further assess the additional functional impairment on repeated use or during flare-ups in terms of the degree of additional ROM loss. The examiner should consider all procurable and assembled data by obtaining all tests and records that might reasonably illuminate the medical analysis, to include the Veteran’s statements regarding the extent of functional loss during flare-ups. Additionally, the examiner should clarify whether the Veteran’s degeneration of the medial meniscus and other pre-operative left knee diagnoses are analogous in symptoms and manifestations to dislocation of semilunar cartilage. 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 supporting rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford them the opportunity to respond before the file is returned to the Board for further consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Henry, Associate Counsel