Citation Nr: 20003000 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 19-08 326 DATE: January 14, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right elbow disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from September 1990 to September 2016. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right elbow disorder is remanded. The Veteran underwent a VA examination for a right elbow disorder in June 2016. Subsequent to the June 2016 VA examination, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), held that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that VA examinations include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weightbearing and non-weightbearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. Thus, the Court’s holding in Correia establishes additional requirements that must be met prior to finding that a VA examination is adequate. A review of the claims file reveals that the June 2016 VA examination reported included range of motion testing but did not include active and passive motion or weight-bearing and non-weightbearing. As the previous examination reports do not fully satisfy the requirements of Correia and 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, a new examination is necessary to decide the claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected right elbow disorder. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. In so doing, the examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement 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). If any such test is not conducted, the examiner must explain why such test was not necessary. 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. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement based on direct observation, the examiner should provide an estimate, if at all possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran’s statements. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement 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). Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Thompson, 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.