Citation Nr: 20028021 Decision Date: 04/21/20 Archive Date: 04/21/20 DOCKET NO. 09-03 336A DATE: April 21, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent, prior to February 22, 2013, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter for service-connected lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) with intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1984 to June 2006 in the United States Air Force. Entitlement to an increased rating for lumbar spine DDD with IVDS is remanded. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the directives in the Board’s December 2017 remand; another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The February 2018 VA examination does not comply with the requirements in Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). The examiner did elicit relevant information regarding the description of the Veteran’s flare-ups and any additional functional loss suffered during flare-ups, the examiner did not quantify that loss. The examiner described the pain on range of motion testing as “severe,” but the functional loss recorded does not attempt to quantify that. The examiner stated that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, the examiner did not indicate that the speculation was due to lack of knowledge within the medical community. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s back disability. The examiner should review the complaints and findings documented on the February 2018 VA examination. If the examiner determines that an opinion cannot be provided without a new examination, one should be scheduled. 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. The examiner should consider the 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). M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P.S. McLeod 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.