Citation Nr: 1807422 Decision Date: 02/06/18 Archive Date: 02/14/18 DOCKET NO. 14-24 396 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Diego, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to an evaluation higher than 10 percent for left knee degenerative arthritis. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Texas Veterans Commission WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Buck Denton, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active military duty from March 1988 to September 2010. This matter initially came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. Since that time, the RO in Houston, Texas, has since taken jurisdiction over the appeal. The Veteran presented testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a January 2017 Board hearing. A transcript of the hearing is in VACOLS. The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Board sincerely regrets the additional delay that inevitably will result from this remand, but it is necessary to ensure there is a complete record so the Veteran is afforded every possible consideration. Regarding the Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his service-connected left knee degenerative arthritis, a new VA examination must be provided that complies with Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) and Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). Correia mandates that orthopedic examinations include the testing described in 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2017), or an explanation as to why such testing is not warranted or not possible. Sharp requires VA examiners to obtain information from the Veteran as to the severity, frequency, and duration of flare-ups, as well as precipitating and alleviating factors, and the extent of functional impairment. It also requires that VA examiners estimate the additional loss of range of motion during a flare-up based on all procurable information from the record, as well as the Veteran's own statements. If an estimate cannot be provided without resort to speculation, it must be clear whether this is due to a lack of knowledge among the medical community at large, or insufficient knowledge of the specific examiner. Further, on remand the AOJ should obtain the Veteran's complete VA treatment records as well as his complete treatment records from Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make arrangements to obtain the Veteran's complete VA treatment records, dated from September 2010 forward. 2. Make arrangements to obtain the Veteran's complete treatment record from Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center, dated from September 2010 forward. 3. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to assess the nature and current level of severity of his service-connected left knee disability. The Veteran's claims file, including a copy of this REMAND, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. The examiner must note in the examination report that the evidence in the claims file has been reviewed. The appropriate Disability Benefits Questionnaire should be filled out. In the examination report, the examiner must include all of the following: A. Active range of motion testing results. B. Passive range of motion testing results. C. Weightbearing range of motion testing results. D. Non-weightbearing range of motion testing results. If the examiner is unable to conduct one or more of the above tests or finds that it is unnecessary, the examiner must provide an explanation. In any event, the type of test performed (i.e. active or passive, weightbearing or nonweightbearing), must be specified. The examiner must elicit as much information as possible from the Veteran regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of flare-ups, their effect on functioning, and precipitating and alleviating factors. If the examination is not performed during a flare-up, the examiner must provide an estimate of additional loss of range of motion during a flare-up. If the examiner is unable to provide an estimate of additional loss of motion during a flare-up, the examiner must provide a specific explanation as to why the available information, including the Veteran's own statements, is not sufficient to make such an estimate. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all opinions and conclusions reached. 4. After the above development is completed, and any other development that may be warranted based on any additional information or evidence received, readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefits sought are not granted, the Veteran and his representative must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014). _________________________________________________ P. M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2014), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2017).