Citation Nr: 20028086 Decision Date: 04/22/20 Archive Date: 04/22/20 DOCKET NO. 19-09 845 DATE: April 22, 2020 REMANDED The claim of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for maxillary and frontal sinusitis (hereinafter sinusitis) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had periods of honorable active duty service with the United States Air National Guard from December 1990 to June 1991, October 1998 to October 1998, March 2000 to August 2000, September 2000 to December 2001, February 2003 to June 2003, and March 2010 to July 2010. The Board acknowledges the lengthy service of the Veteran with the Air National Guard from October 1982 to December 2014. This matter is before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) from an October 2018 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that granted a noncompensable initial rating for sinusitis. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for sinusitis. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an initial evaluation in excess of 0 percent for his sinusitis. Specifically, he contends that he is entitled to a 10 percent rating as he states he has 3 to 6 non-incapacitating episodes per year, with episodes more than 3 times per year with symptoms such as headaches, pressure, throat discomfort, and stomach upset. See Notice of Disagreement (NOD) and Substantive Appeal, VA Form 9. VA’s duty to assist includes providing a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, especially where it is necessary to determine the current level of a disability. Peters v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 540, 542 (1994). The Board notes that the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination for service connection that assessed the severity of his service-connected sinusitis in October 2018, approximately a year and a quarter ago. In the Veteran’s NOD submitted January 2019, the Veteran indicated that he had to clear his nose after every meal and that his sinuses caused issues every year, 4 to 8 times per year. In the Veteran’s March 2019 VA Form 9, he indicated that he met the standard of 3 to 6 non-incapacitating episodes per year of headaches, pain, and purulent discharge or crusting “plus some.” The Veteran asserted that his sinusitis included episodes more than 3 times per year with headaches, pressure, throat discomfort, and stomach upset. The Veteran’s October 2018 VA examination included the statements of the Veteran’s sinus issues and the examiner’s finding that his sinusitis required treatment 1 to 2 times per year, but found these treatments were neither incapacitating episodes nor non-incapacitating episodes. The examiner found that the Veteran did not have any incapacitating or non-incapacitating episodes in the past 12 months. The Board notes that the mere passage of time does not require VA to provide a new medical examination. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 182 (2007). However, in light of the Veteran’s statements of symptoms and increased episodes in his NOD and VA Form 9 indicating that his sinusitis may have worsened since his October 2018 examination, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a new examination to determine the severity and manifestations of his service-connected sinusitis. Considering the allegations of the progression of the Veteran’s symptoms, as alleged, a VA examination is warranted on remand. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991) (holding that where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of that disability, the fulfillment of the statutory duty to assist requires a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination). The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The Veteran should be scheduled for a VA examination to assess the current severity of his sinusitis. The claims folder must be provided to the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All necessary tests and studies should be conducted. The examiner should offer an assessment of all pertinent symptomatology and findings, to be reported in detail in accordance with Diagnostic Code 6512-6513. 2. Following completion of the foregoing, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should review the record, perform any necessary development, and readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the appeal is denied, the AOJ should issue an appropriate Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), afford the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond, and return the case to the Board. Kate E. Kovarovic Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C.A. Teich, 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.