Citation Nr: 18158462 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/17/18 DOCKET NO. 13-29 380 DATE: December 18, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 10 percent for a right ankle disability is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based up on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to February 1968. In August 2017, the Board denied claims for entitlement to an initial rating greater than 10 percent for a right ankle disability and entitlement to an initial rating greater than 30 percent for bilateral pes planus. The Veteran appealed the denial of his claim for entitlement to an initial rating greater than 10 percent for a right ankle disability to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In June 2018, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties, which vacated that part of the Board’s August 2017 decision which denied an initial rating greater than 10 percent for a right ankle disability, and remanded the claim to the Board for additional development. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 10 percent for a right ankle disability is remanded. The June 2018 JMPR found that the Board’s August 2017 decision relied upon inadequate VA examinations in adjudicating the Veteran’s claim. Specifically, the JMPR concluded that September 2009 and November 2012 VA examinations were inadequate because they did not conduct right ankle range of motion testing under passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing conditions as required by Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). Accordingly, the Veteran’s claim is remanded for a new and adequate VA examination to determine the current severity of his right ankle disability. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based up on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. In November 2018, the Veteran raised the issue of entitlement to a TDIU. A TDIU claim is part of an increased rating claim when such claim is raised by the record. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Accordingly, TDIU has been raised by the record. On remand the intertwined issue of entitlement to TDIU must be adjudicated. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a new VA examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected right ankle disability. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. Range of motion should be reported in degrees, noting by comparison the normal range of motion. The examiner should also test and report the range of motion in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing. If there is pain on range of motion, the examiner must state at which point pain began. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due the right ankle disability alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). (Continued on the next page)   2. The RO must then readjudicate the Veteran’s claim with consideration of all evidence in the claims file as well as the claim for entitlement to a TDIU. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and be given the opportunity to respond thereto. The appeal must then be returned to the Board for appellate review. [ MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Katz, Counsel