Citation Nr: 20021412 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 15-00 502 DATE: March 25, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for cervical spine disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1984 to August 1984, from July 1987 to January 1999, and from August 2002 to February 2011. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) and was previously remanded by the Board in May 2018. In a November 17, 2016 letter, the Veteran indicated that he wished to withdraw his request for a hearing before the Board. Accordingly, his Board hearing request is considered withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e) (2018). Pursuant to the Board’s May 2018 remand directives, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2019 to assess the current severity of his cervical spine disability. During the examination, the Veteran reported that he experiences flare-ups in his cervical spine. The examiner did not estimate range of motion loss based on the Veteran’s reported flare-ups and their impact. For this reason, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to ensure that the Board has adequate information as to the Veteran’s reported flare-ups of his cervical spine disability. See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and current severity of his service-connected cervical spine. The Veteran’s electronic claims file must be accessible for review by the VA examiner in conjunction with the examination. A complete history from the Veteran should be obtained and recorded. All testing deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed and the results reported in detail. In particular, the examiner must test the range of motion in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and non-weight-bearing. If possible, provide these tests for the opposite joint. If the examiner is unable to conduct any aspect of the required testing or concludes that it is not necessary, e.g., non-weight-bearing, the examiner should clearly explain why that is the case. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. Following the review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner is then requested to respond to the following: a. Describe any functional limitation due to pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, pain with use, or incoordination. b. Indicate whether the examination is taking place during a period of flare-up, and if it is not, the examiner should ask the Veteran to describe the flare-ups, including: frequency, duration, severity, and functional impairment. c. Provide an opinion estimating any additional degrees of limited motion caused by functional loss during a flare-up. If the Veteran is not being observed during a flare-up or after repeated use over time during the examination, the examiner should still estimate any additional functional impairment based on the evidence of record and the Veteran’s lay descriptions of repeated use or flares’ severity, frequency, duration, and/or functional loss manifestations. If the examiner cannot estimate the degrees of additional range of motion during flare-ups without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner. 2. After completing all indicated development, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction should readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case, given the opportunity to respond, and the case should thereafter be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if warranted. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Houle, 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.