Citation Nr: 1815365 Decision Date: 03/16/18 Archive Date: 03/23/18 DOCKET NO. 14-34 087 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in North Little Rock, Arkansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of ten percent for a thoracolumbar disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Howell, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1988 to August 1988, and from March 1990 to April 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in North Little Rock, Arkansas (hereinafter Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ)). In preparing to decide the issue on appeal, the Board has reviewed the contents of the Veteran's electronic files, including the Content Legacy Manager and Veterans Benefit Management System (VBMS) claims files, using Caseflow Reader. All records are now in these electronic systems. The Veteran testified at a July 2017 videoconference hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of those proceedings is associated with the Veteran's VBMS file. The appeal is REMANDED to the AOJ. VA will notify the Veteran if further action, on his part, is required. REMAND The Veteran seeks entitlement to an initial rating in excess of ten percent for a thoracolumbar disorder. During his July 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated he was receiving chiropractic treatment from Garrett Chiropractic. Those records do not appear to be part of the claims file. On remand, the AOJ should attempt to obtain those records. Additionally, the Veteran last underwent a VA examination in May 2010. Since that time, the Veteran and his representative have indicated that his thoracolumbar disorder has worsened. See November 2015 Representative Statement; July 2017 Hearing Testimony. Under these circumstances, another VA examination is necessary to determine the current severity of his service-connected thoracolumbar disorder. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain VA records since May 2013. 2. With the help of the Veteran as necessary, attempt to obtain relevant treatment records from Garrett Chiropractic. All attempts to obtain such records should be documented in the claims file. 3. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to address the current severity of his thoracolumbar spine disorder and related neurological symptoms. The examiner must review the Veteran's Legacy Content Manager and VBMS files. The examiner should indicate in the opinion that all pertinent records were reviewed. All clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. In order to comply with Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33 (2017), the examiner is asked to describe whether pain, weakness, fatigue and/or incoordination significantly limits functional ability during flares or repetitive use, and if so, the examiner must estimate range of motion during flares or repetitive use. If the examination does not take place during a flare or repetitive testing cannot be performed, the examiner should have the Veteran to describe and/or demonstrate the extent of motion loss during flares or repetitive use and provide the extent of motion loss described in terms of degrees. If there is no pain and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. The examiner should comment as to whether there is any medical reason to accept or reject the Veteran's description of reduced range of motion during flares or repetitive use. The examiner should also address the severity (i.e., favorable or unfavorable) and location of any ankylosis, and note any functional limitation caused by the thoracolumbar disorder. Also, in order to comply with the Court's decision in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), the VA examination must include range of motion testing in the following areas: • Active motion; • Passive motion; • Weight-bearing; and • Nonweight-bearing. 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 that is so. The examiner should also determine the extent of any neurological impairment related to his thoracolumbar spine disorder, specifically addressing the Veteran's July 2017 hearing testimony indicating shoulder symptoms and bilateral lower extremity lumbar radiculopathy symptoms. All opinions expressed by the examiner must be accompanied by a complete rationale, with citation to relevant medical findings. 4. After completing the actions detailed above, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit is not granted to Veteran's satisfaction, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and his representative. After the Veteran has had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. _________________________________________________ T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (2012), 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).