Citation Nr: 20043716 Decision Date: 06/29/20 Archive Date: 06/29/20 DOCKET NO. 16-11 360 DATE: June 29, 2020 REMANDED A rating greater than 10 percent for patellofemoral disorder of the left knee is remanded. A rating greater than 10 percent for patellofemoral disorder of the right knee is remanded. A rating greater than 70 percent for anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, is remanded. A total disability rating based on individual employability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 2000 to November 2001. He withdrew his hearing request in a July 2018 written statement. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). These appeals were then remanded by the Board in July 2019 for additional development, in part to obtain new VA examinations. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In a December 2019 letter, the Veteran was informed that the requested action had been initiated. In January 2020, multiple internal communications were uploaded to the Veteran’s claims file indicating that VA had been unable to contact him via phone to schedule his examinations. As such, the examination requests were canceled and the appeals returned to the Board. However, the record indicates that VA was using inaccurate phone numbers in its efforts to contact the Veteran. Notably, an updated phone number was communicated to VA in May 2018. Further, it does not appear that any additional efforts were made to contact the Veteran in scheduling his examinations, to include via mail or through his appointed representative. See also December 2016 communication (communicating the Veteran’s consent for VA to contact his mother in the event that he must be reached). In light of the above and considering the Veteran’s history of fluctuating living situations, it is found that additional efforts are warranted to provide the Veteran with current VA examinations. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c); see also June 2020 representative’s brief (requesting that the examinations be rescheduled). In doing so, the Veteran is reminded of his obligation to keep VA apprised of his current contact information. See Hyson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 262 (1993) (discussing a claimant’s duty to inform VA of his or her current address); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (participation in the VA process is a “two-way street”). During the pendency of this appeal, the Veteran has also reported ongoing treatment at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Jackson, MS. See, e.g., April 2014 lay statement and authorization form. To date, a complete copy of these records has not been requested or otherwise obtained. See VA treatment records obtained in March 2020 (totaling only 11 pages). As these records may be relevant to the current appeals, reasonable efforts must be undertaken to obtain them. Finally, the appeal seeking a TDIU remains inextricably intertwined with the increased rating claims, such that a remand of this issue is warranted, as well. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate with the record all VA treatment records for the Veteran spanning the period on appeal, to include from the Jackson VAMC. All actions to obtain the requested records should be fully documented in the record. If they cannot be located or no such records exist, the Veteran and his representative should be so notified in writing. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination in order to ascertain the current severity of his service-connected bilateral knee disabilities. Any tests deemed necessary should be conducted, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail in accordance with DC 5260. The complete claims folder must be provided to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination. The extent of any weakened movement, excess fatigability and pain on use, should be described. To the extent possible, the functional impairment due to weakened movement, excess fatigability, and pain on use should be assessed in terms of additional degrees of limitation of motion. Range of motion studies should be conducted. In assessing the severity of the disabilities, the examiner should test for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight bearing, and, if possible, each joint should be contrasted with the range of the opposite undamaged joint. Any further testing deemed necessary should also be conducted and the results recorded in detail. The examiner should, if possible, note facial expressions of pain, crepitation in soft tissues and joint structures, and test for pain throughout range of motion in the various ways described above. If the Veteran describes flare-ups of pain, the examiner must offer an opinion as to whether there would be additional limits on functional ability during flare-ups. An estimate of additional degrees of limitation of motion during the flare-ups should be provided. If this is not feasible, the examiner should so state and explain why. The examiner should also provide information concerning the functional impairment that results from the bilateral knee disabilities that may affect the ability to function and perform tasks in a work setting. Any opinions must be accompanied by a complete rationale. If the examiner is unable to reach an opinion without resort to speculation, he or she should explain the reasons for this inability and comment on whether any further tests, evidence or information would be useful in rendering an opinion. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected anxiety disorder, NOS. The claims folder, and any additional evidence obtained, if any, must be made available to the examiner for review. All tests and studies deemed necessary by the examiner should be conducted, in order to obtain, as accurately as possible, a picture of the nature and extent of the Veteran’s anxiety disorder, NOS. The examiner should report all signs and symptoms necessary for rating the Veteran’s psychiatric disability under the applicable rating criteria of DC 9413. A fully articulated medical rationale for any opinion expressed must be set forth in the medical report. The examiner is asked to comment on the functional impairment resulting from the service-connected anxiety disorder, NOS as it may affect his ability to function and perform tasks in an occupational setting. Any opinions must be accompanied by a complete rationale. If the examiner is unable to reach an opinion without resort to speculation, he or she should explain the reasons for this inability and comment on whether any further tests, evidence or information would be useful in rendering an opinion. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Kovarovic, 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.