Citation Nr: 18158290 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 17-00 143 DATE: December 14, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee chondral calcinosis, residual of arthroscopy is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee chondral calcinosis, residual of arthroscopy is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for limitation of left knee extension is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for limitation of right knee extension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from December 1984 through December 2004. The Veteran was originally granted service connection for bilateral chondral calcinosis, residual of arthroscopy, in November 2005, with an initial noncompensable rating and an effective date of January 1, 2005. The Veteran’s rating for the left knee was increased to 10 percent, effective November 19, 2010, in an October 2012 rating decision. A May 2016 rating decision increased the Veteran’s rating for the right knee to 10 percent, effective November 19, 2010, and also granted the Veteran service connection for limitation of the bilateral knees with a noncompensable rating effective November 19, 2010. While the Board sincerely regrets the delay, additional development is required before the Veteran’s claims may be adjudicated on the merits. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee chondral calcinosis, residual of arthroscopy is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee chondral calcinosis, residual of arthroscopy is remanded. 3. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for limitation of left knee extension is remanded. 4. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for limitation of right knee extension is remanded. The Board received a Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) from the Veteran in October 2015. A review of the record reflects that the Veteran’s symptoms associated with his bilateral chondral calcinosis, residual of arthroscopy, and limitation of extension of the bilateral knees has worsened. Specifically, a December 2016 buddy statement indicated that the Veteran’s knee pain has resulted in difficulty standing from a seated position in his desk chair, walking, the inability to straighten his legs, and the need for crutches and canes to walk. See, December 2016 T.S. buddy statement. The Veteran’s representative submitted a statement in January 2017, stating that the Veteran’s knees “are becoming more painful and limited in use.” See, January 2017 Statement of Representative in Appeals Case. Further, a review of the Veteran’s post-service treatment records reflects on-going treatment for knee pain, to include continued injections. Based on a finding that the Veteran’s symptoms associated with his bilateral chondral calcinosis, residual of arthroscopy, and limitation of extension of the bilateral knees have worsened, the Board finds that VA is required to afford the Veteran with a contemporaneous VA examination to assess the current nature, extent, and severity of his service-connected bilateral chondral calcinosis, residual of arthroscopy, and limitation of extension of the bilateral knee as the Veteran’s most recent DBQ may no longer reflect an accurate picture of the Veteran’s disability. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the Veteran’s claims file. 2. Following the receipt of any outstanding records, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with the appropriate medical personnel in order to determine the current level of severity of his bilateral knee disabilities. The Veteran’s entire claims file, to include a copy of this remand, should be provided to the examiner. Following a complete review of the record, the examiner is asked to provide the following opinion: Determine the current severity of the Veteran’s bilateral knee disabilities. Report the Veteran’s range of motion for the knees in degrees. The range of motion should be tested actively and passively, in weight-bearing, nonweight-bearing, and after repetitive use. 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 this is so. In providing this opinion, the examiner should consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his decreased range of motion. The extent of any weakened movement, excess fatigability and incoordination should also be described by the examiner. The examiner should assess the additional functional impairment due to weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination in terms of the degree of additional range of motion loss. 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 range of motion loss. The examiner should consider all procurable and assembled data by obtaining all tests and records that might reasonably illuminate the medical analysis. This includes the Veteran’s statements regarding the extent of functional loss and additional range of motion loss during flare-ups. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. Daugherty, Associate Counsel