Citation Nr: 18160316 Decision Date: 12/26/18 Archive Date: 12/26/18 DOCKET NO. 17-11 122 DATE: December 26, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the right knee is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty from February 1972 to October 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Decatur, Georgia. The Veteran raised the issue of whether he was unemployable due, in part, to service-connected knee disabilities. See, e.g., Brief (March 2018). The Board takes jurisdiction of the issue of entitlement to a TDIU because it is part and parcel to the issue on appeal. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). 1. Entitlement to a rating ine excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the left knee is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating ine excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the right knee is remanded. Initially, the Board finds that VA examination is needed to ascertain the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected knee disabilities as he indicates that such have worsened since his most recent VA examination in December 2016. See, e.g., Substantive appeal (February 2017). Additionally, reexamination is needed to comply with the last sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 as it pertains to testing the joints 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 (or for an explanation as to why such testing cannot be conducted). See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016). The most recent VA examination, which was conducted in December 2016, does not provide this information. VA examination is also needed to address functional limitations during flare-ups as the December 2016 VA examiner failed to adequately explain why she could not estimate the loss of function during flare-ups. See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). Such information is necessary to adequately understand his additional or increased symptoms and limitations experienced during flares. Id. 3. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The Veteran’s claim for TDIU is also remanded, as it is inextricably intertwined with his increased rating claims. Additionally, in his February 2016 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran reported that he has been unemployed and in receipt of Social Security disability benefits. Significantly, as records pertaining to such Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits are outstanding and will likely yield information relevant both to the severity of the Veteran’s disabilities and his employment history, they must be associated with the claims file. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(2) (2017); see Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Notify the Veteran that he can submit lay statements from himself and from other individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the severity and manifestations of his right knee and left knee disabilities and the impact of his service-connected disabilities on his ability to work. 2. Obtain complete SSA disability records for the Veteran, to include underlying medical records upon which any SSA disability decision was based. If such records are unavailable, the Veteran’s claims file must be clearly documented to that effect and the Veteran notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his left and right knee disabilities. The examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner must also 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 to the knee disabilities alone and discuss the effect such 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). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joshua Castillo, Counsel