Citation Nr: 20043776 Decision Date: 06/29/20 Archive Date: 06/29/20 DOCKET NO. 15-32 990 DATE: June 29, 2020 REMANDED Evaluation in excess of 10 for left knee complex tear of medial meniscus and chronic ACL tear is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for left knee scar is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from March 1983 to June 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The case was previously before the Board in August 2018 and remanded for additional development. 1. Evaluation in excess of 10 for left knee complex tear of medial meniscus and chronic ACL tear is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for left knee scar is remanded. The Board finds that further development is necessary before a decision on the merits may be made. Pursuant to the August 2018 Board remand, the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination to assess the severity of his left knee condition and scar. Although the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination in October 2019, there are no documents in the Veteran’s file that indicate that the Veteran received notice of his upcoming VA examination. For example, there is no notice of a scheduling examination letter of record or a Report of General Information memorializing any contacts or attempted contacts with the Veteran of record, which raises due process concerns. Thus, the Board cannot render a finding that the Veteran failed to report for a VA examination. In light of the above, the Board finds that this case should be remanded to afford the Veteran the opportunity to present for a VA examination to assess the severity of his left knee condition and scar. The Veteran is reminded that the duty to assist is not a one-way street, and that he is to make himself available for a scheduled VA examination, or the case may be decided upon the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (b); see Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). 3. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability is remanded. The Veteran asserts that he is unemployable due to his left knee condition. As such, the Board notes that the issue of TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the issues remaining on appeal. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that a final Board decision cannot be rendered unless both are adjudicated). Therefore, the Board finds it necessary to remand this issue. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Appropriate efforts should be made to obtain and associate with this case file any outstanding VA medical records and all outstanding private treatment records, with all necessary assistance from the Veteran. All information obtained must be made part of the file. All attempts to secure this evidence must be documented in the claims file, and if, after making reasonable efforts to obtain named records, they are not able to be secured, provide the required notice and opportunity to respond to the Veteran and his representative. 2. Reschedule the VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected left knee condition and include a copy of that notice letter showing the date, place, and time of the examination sent to the Veteran’s last known address. The record and a copy of this remand must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examination must include all physical and diagnostic testing deemed necessary by the examiner in conjunction with this request. The examiner should report all manifestations related to the Veteran’s service-connected left knee disability. The examiner must address the following: (a.) The examiner should record the results of range-of-motion testing for pain on both active and passive motion and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing for the left knee. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, the examiner should clearly explain why that is so. In recording the ranges of motion for the Veteran’s left knee, the examiner should note whether, upon repetitive motion, there is any pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination of movement, and whether there is likely to be additional functional loss due to pain on use, weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination over time. If there is no pain, no limitation of motion, and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. (b.) The examiner should also express an opinion concerning whether there would be additional functional impairment on repeated use over time or during flare-ups. The examiner should assess the additional functional impairment on repeated use or during flare-ups in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss, if possible. If the Veteran indicates that he is not currently experiencing a flare-up at the time of the examination, the examiner should estimate any additional functional loss during flare-ups or on repeated use, if feasible. If it is not feasible to determine, even by estimation, the extent to which the Veteran experiences additional functional loss on repeated use over time or during flare-ups without resorting to speculation, the examiner must provide an explanation for why this is so. (c.) Address the manifestations of the Veteran’s left knee surgical scar. 3. After completion of the above, review the expanded record, including the evidence entered since the most recent statement of the case, and determine whether increased ratings for the Veteran’s service-connected left knee disability and service-connected left knee scar may be granted and whether entitlement to a TDIU may be granted. (Continued on the next page)   If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case. The appropriate period should be allowed for response before the appeal is returned to the Board. ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Javed, 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.