Citation Nr: 18157809 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/13/18 DOCKET NO. 15-10 835 DATE: December 13, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from June 1993 to June 1997, with periods of service in the Louisiana Air National Guard in January 2002 and from August 2004 to August 2005. During his periods of service, the Veteran earned the Joint Service Achievement Medal, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with 1 oak leaf cluster, Air Reserve Forces Meritorious Service Medal with 2 oak leaf clusters, National Defense Service Medal with 1 service star, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Air Force Longevity Service Award, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (Rifle), Air Force Training Ribbon, and NATO Medal. After a thorough review of the Veteran’s claims file, the Board has determined that additional evidentiary development is necessary prior to the adjudication of the Veteran’s claims for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability. Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017). The Veteran last underwent a VA examination in November 2011. However, the examination of record does not provide sufficient information regarding range of motion. In Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) determined that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires VA examinations to include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight bearing and non-weight bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. In this case, the VA examination of record does not fully comply with the requirements set forth in Correia. As such, a remand is, therefore, required in order to obtain an adequate examination and opinion to correct this deficiency. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for VA examinations with the appropriate examiner to determine the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected right knee disability. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review in connection with the examination. The examination report must reflect that such a review was conducted. The examiner should identify any symptoms that the Veteran currently manifests or has manifested that are attributable to his service-connected right knee disability. All appropriate testing, including range of motion, should be performed. The examiner must further comment as to whether there is any pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination on movement, and the degree to which any additional range of motion is lost due to any of the following should be addressed: (1) pain on use, including during flare-ups; (2) weakened movement; (3) excess fatigability; or (4) incoordination. The examiner is asked to describe whether pain significantly limits functional ability during flare-ups, and if so, the examiner must estimate range of motion during flares. IF THE EXAMINATION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE DURING A FLARE, THE EXAMINER MUST GLEAN INFORMATION REGARDING THE FLARES’ SEVERITY, FREQUENCY, DURATION, AND FUNCTIONAL LOSS MANIFESTATIONS FROM THE VETERAN, MEDICAL RECORDS, AND OTHER AVAILABLE SOURCES. EFFORTS TO OBTAIN SUCH INFORMATION MUST BE DOCUMENTED. If there is no pain and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. Pursuant to Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168-70 (2016), the examination should record the results of range of motion testing for pain on BOTH active and passive motion AND in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. Rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Joseph, Associate Counsel