Citation Nr: 20044091 Decision Date: 06/30/20 Archive Date: 06/30/20 DOCKET NO. 14-13 910 DATE: June 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia patella of the right knee is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from August 1970 to August 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) rating decision dated in February 2014. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia patella of the right knee is remanded. The Veteran underwent a VA examination for his knees in July 2013, with an addendum opinion provided in January 2015. Range of motion testing was completed for the right knee, but was not reported for the left knee. The Veteran also reported flare-ups of the right knee with limitations in walking. However, in July 2018, the Veteran testified that his knee had worsened. He reported clicking and popping, and use of a knee brace. As the record indicates a potential worsening of the Veteran’s knee disability, a remand is necessary to assess the current severity of the Veteran’s service-connected chondromalacia patella of the right knee. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Moreover, the Board concludes that the July 2013 VA examination and January 2015 addendum opinion are inadequate for rating purposes. In order to be adequate, VA examinations must include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). VA examiners must also provide opinions regarding flare-ups based upon estimates derived from information procured from relevant sources, including lay statements, when a flare-up is not observable at the time of examination. Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). The July 2013 VA examination report does not include specific Correia findings. More importantly, while the examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran experienced additional limitation of range of motion with flares, the rationale provided is inadequate as the Veteran’s statements were not taken into consideration. Additionally, the opinion is based on a presumed correlation between repetitions over time and flareups, but the examiner did not adequately explain the relationship between the two measurements. Therefore, a remand is necessary for an adequate VA examination and estimate of functional loss during flares. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s treatment records since May 2018 and supplement the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected right knee disability, or by other means if an in-person examination is not feasible. 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. Specifically, the examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, ranges of motion of the opposing joint, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. The examiner must also attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. If this cannot be performed, the examiner should explain why. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the service-connected right knee disability and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s service-connected disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. A complete rationale should be provided by the examiner for any expressed opinion. An adequate rationale must account for all relevant evidence. If the examiner determines that he or she is unable to provide the requested opinions without resort to speculation, the examiner must provide a reasoned explanation for such conclusion. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Smith, 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.