Citation Nr: 18157124 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 16-36 221 DATE: December 11, 2018 REMANDED An initial rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with intervertebral disc syndrome is remanded. A total disability rating for compensation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded.   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1996 to January 1997. The case is on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision. In July 2018, the Veteran submitted a statement that can be construed as a motion to advance this appeal on the Board’s docket. The motion is granted based upon financial hardship. 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 1. An initial rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with intervertebral disc syndrome. The Veteran maintains that he is entitled to a higher rating for his service-connected back condition. He contends that when determining his rating the VA failed to consider the additional impact of his connective tissue disease, the effects of his medications, and the functional loss from his back pain. The Veteran also stated that his doctor initially recommended “6 months convalesce but it has since been indefinitely.” At a December 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported 2-3 flare-ups per month that last for 2 days, and manifests by increased pain and requires additional rest. The examiner did not state the extent to which the Veteran’s flare-ups caused additional limitation in range of motion other than he “forward flexes less.” The examination also does not address range of motion in both passive and active motion, and weightbearing and non-weightbearing circumstances. The Board finds that a remand is warranted for another examination because the December 2014 examination was not wholly adequate for rating purposes. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) (holding that, per 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, in order to assess the effect of painful motion, range of motion tests for both passive and active motion, and in both weightbearing and non-weightbearing circumstances, should be done). See also Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017) (holding that the examiner should “estimate the functional loss that would occur during flares”). In light of the remand, updated VA treatment records should be obtained. 2. A TDIU. In December 2017, the Veteran included an award letter granting Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits since August 2014 based on, at least in part, his service-connected back and psychiatric conditions. The Veteran’s claims file lacks the complete SSA records. As those SSA records are potentially relevant to the claims, remand for acquisition of all associated SSA disability records is warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(c)(2); Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In addition, the issue of TDIU is intertwined with the Veteran’s pending increased rating appeal for his back. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). As such, the Veteran’s claim for TDIU is also remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request from SSA a complete copy of the Veteran’s disability award records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Obtain any updated VA treatment records dated since April 2015. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an appropriate clinician to ascertain the current severity of his service-connected lumbar spine disability. The examiner should report range of motion findings in degrees, on both active and passive range of motion testing, in weightbearing and non-weightbearing circumstances, in the examination report. If there are flare-ups, but the examination is not conducted during the flare-up, the examiner should estimate the functional impairment of the flare-up in terms of degrees lost from range of motion. If such cannot be estimated, then the examiner should explain why. A complete rationale or explanation should be provided for any opinion reached. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Morford, Associate Counsel