Citation Nr: 20007532 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/29/20 DOCKET NO. 18-00 429 DATE: January 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for residuals of fracture of the left middle finger is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for disability of the left index finger is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Navy from September 1985 to January 1992. His decorations include the Southwest Asia Service Medal. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Augusta, Maine. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claims and to afford him every possible consideration.  1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for residuals of fracture of the left middle finger is remanded. VA regulations provide that joints should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59; Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). Neither the report of an April 2015 VA examination nor that of a December 2017 private examination contains the results of such testing. As such, another examination is required. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left index finger disability is remanded. When the Veteran filed his claim in November 2014, he indicated that he had been seen at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Atlanta, Georgia and/or the VA Clinic in Lawrenceville, Georgia since 1993. As of now, VA treatment records prior to 2004 have not been associated with the record. It is not entirely clear whether the reports do not exist, or the records thus far obtained are incomplete. This needs to be clarified. The Veteran was examined in connection with his claim in April 2015. The examiner appears to have found that the Veteran did not have a current disability of the left index finger. Since that time, the Veteran has provided a December 2017 private examination report which shows that he has limited motion in that finger. Accordingly, and because the record reflects that he injured his left index finger during service, the Board finds that an additional examination would be beneficial in determining if he currently has a left index finger disability and, if so, whether it is related to service. See, e.g., McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). These matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Take action to ensure that all relevant records of the Veteran’s treatment at the VAMC in Atlanta and the VA Clinic in Lawrenceville are associated with the claims file, to particularly include any such records dated from 1993 to 2004, including, but not limited to, any and all non-electronic (i.e., typed or hand-written) clinical records, progress notes, and/or reports of hospitalization, whether or not they have been archived, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Efforts to obtain the evidence should be fully documented, and should be discontinued only if it is concluded that the evidence sought does not exist or that further efforts to obtain the evidence would be futile. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 3. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, arrange to have the Veteran scheduled for an examination of his service-connected left middle finger. The examiner should provide a full description of the Veteran’s associated functional impairments as they relate to the relevant rating criteria. The examination must include testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight bearing and non-weight bearing, and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding functional loss due to flare-ups and repeated use over time. If the Veteran suffers from such loss, the examiner should express the loss in terms of degrees of additional loss in range of motion (i.e., in addition to that observed clinically), if feasible, taking into account all of the evidence, including the Veteran’s competent statements with respect to the frequency, duration, characteristics, and severity of his limitations. Governing law requires that if the Veteran is not exhibiting functional loss due to flare-ups and/or repeated use over time, examiners will nevertheless offer opinions with respect to functional loss based on estimates derived from information procured from relevant sources, including lay statements of the Veteran. An examiner must do all that reasonably should be done to become informed before concluding that an opinion cannot be provided without resorting to speculation. That said, if it is the examiner’s conclusion that he or she cannot feasibly provide the requested opinion(s), even considering all of the available evidence, it must be so stated, and the examiner must provide the reasons why offering such opinion(s) is not feasible. 4. Also arrange to have the Veteran scheduled for a VA examination of his left index finger. The examiner should review the record. All indicated tests should be conducted and the results reported. After examining the Veteran and reviewing the record, together with the results of any testing deemed necessary, the examiner should identify any functional impairments of the left index finger the Veteran has had at any time since November 2014 (when he filed his claim for service connection), to include any limitation of motion. Then, with respect to any such impairment(s), the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether it is 50 percent or more probable) that the impairment had its onset in, or is otherwise attributable to, the Veteran’s period of active service. In so doing, the examiner should discuss the service records reflecting that the Veteran injured his left idex finger during service. The examiner should also discuss the report of the private examination dated in December 2017. A complete medical rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 5. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Gandhi, 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.