Citation Nr: 19154367 Decision Date: 07/16/19 Archive Date: 07/15/19 DOCKET NO. 16-25 569 DATE: July 16, 2019 REMANDED A compensable evaluation for residuals of left femur fracture (left leg condition) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the Marine Corps from September 1964 to September 1968, and the Coast Guard from May 1973 to May 1976. The Veteran attended a videoconference hearing in June 2019 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The transcript from the hearing has not yet been associated with the file, as the case is being remanded under the Board’s “One Touch” program. The hearing transcript will still be processed and associated with the claims file in the ordinary course of business. The Board finds that the record suggests a worsening of the Veteran’s symptoms since his last VA examination in December 2011. That examination report is also not adequate. The Veteran has submitted records showing pain on motion, his left leg was measured to be a half inch shorter than his right leg, and he got a half inch lift and TENS unit. The prior examination is inconsistent with other findings in the medical records. As such, a new examination is warranted to evaluate the current severity of the Veteran’s left leg condition. Further, on remand, the RO should attempt to obtain all records and associate with the file all outstanding records from the Portland Medical Center related to treatment for the Veteran’s service-connected condition. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all records from Portland VAMC from June 2016 to present, and associate those records with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate medical clinician, preferably other than the December 2011 examiner, to fully assess the current severity of his left leg condition. PLEASE DO NOT SCHEDULE THE EXAMINATION UNTIL AFTER THE END OF AUGUST 2019. The claims file, to include a copy of this REMAND, must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. All indicated studies, tests, and evaluations must be conducted, and all findings reported in detail. Thereafter, the examiner is asked to address the following: (a) Conduct range of motion testing of the left knee (i.e., flexion and extension) and left hip (i.e., flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, and rotation), specifically noting the motion in degrees on active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing. The results should be compared with range of motion testing conducted on the opposite undamaged joints (i.e., right knee and right hip). If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, s/he should clearly explain why that is so. (b) Render specific findings as to whether there is objective evidence of pain on motion, weakness, excess fatigability, and/or incoordination associated with the left knee and hip. If pain on motion is observed, the examiner should indicate the point at which pain begins. (c) Based on the Veteran’s lay statements and other evidence of record, including the Veteran’s statements at the 2019 Board hearing (that the 2011 VA examiner didn’t really consider the effect of the pin in his hip; that he has an indented area in his hip that hurts, but the examiner focused only on motion); and the Veteran’s wife’s statements at the Board hearing (that the Veteran’s whole left side is smaller and that the Veteran feels he’s having knee issues, too), the examiner must render specific findings as to muscle strength, muscle wasting/atrophy, ankylosis, malunion or non-union of the femur, flail hip joint, or leg length discrepancy. A full and complete explanatory rationale must be provided for any opinions offered. If the examiner feels that any of the requested opinions cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must   indicate whether this inability is due to a lack of knowledge among the medical community or based on a lack of procurable information. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Hoy, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.