Citation Nr: 18159843 Decision Date: 12/20/18 Archive Date: 12/20/18 DOCKET NO. 16-51 498 DATE: December 20, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to higher ratings for bilateral knee disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1991 to March 1999. He served honorably in the United States Air Force, with additional service in the Air National Guard. The Board thanks the Veteran for his service to our country. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Buffalo, New York. The Veteran currently has 10 percent ratings under Diagnostic Codes 5010-5257 (instability) and 5010-5260 (status post arthroscopy associated with meniscal tear) for his left knee and 5260 (status post arthroscopy associated with meniscal tear) for his right knee. Entitlement to higher ratings for bilateral knee disabilities is remanded. In Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires certain range of motion testing be conducted for claims involving joints, such as the knee. The final sentence of § 4.59 provides that “[t]he joints involved should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint.” The Court held that an adequate VA examination of the joints must, wherever possible, include the results of the range of motion testing described in the final sentence of § 4.59. VA examiners should also convey any additional or increased symptoms and functional loss experienced during flare-ups, as well as information pertaining to frequency, duration, characteristics, and severity. See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). Here, the Veteran last underwent a VA examination for his bilateral knee disabilities in October 2015. However, a review of the examination reports shows that they do not comply with the above requirements, nor were private treatment records for the Veteran’s knees made available for review by the October 2015 examiner as the Veteran contended in his October 2016 substantive appeal. The private treatment records referred to by the Veteran have since been associated with the claims file. Accordingly, on remand, a compliant examination that also takes into account the Veteran’s private treatment records is warranted so that the extent of his service-connected bilateral knee disabilities may be fully evaluated. The Board notes that a remand in this matter is responsive to the duty to assist issues raised by the Veteran. See generally Schroeder v. West, 212 F.3d 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Buckley v. West, 12 Vet. App. 76, 83 (1998). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Please associate with the claims file all outstanding VA and non-VA medical records for the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral knee disabilities. 2. After the record is determined to be complete, please schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current extent of his service-connected bilateral knee disabilities. Private treatment records from Great Lakes Medical Imaging and UB MD Orthopedics & Sports Medicine added to the claims file in February and March 2016 should be considered and discussed as necessary, in addition to the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his symptoms to include those in his October 2016 appeal to the Board. In particular, the examiner should: (a.) Conduct range of motion testing, specifically noting the ranges of motion in degrees on active and passive motion, weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing, including with comparison to the opposite undamaged joint (if applicable). If any indicated testing cannot be completed, then the examiner should specifically indicate why such testing cannot be done. (b.) Consider the Veteran’s reports of flare-ups and portray any related functional impairment in terms of additional range of motion loss. The frequency, duration, characteristics, and severity should also be noted. If any indicated testing cannot be completed, then the examiner should specifically indicate why such testing cannot be done. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Fales, Associate Counsel