Citation Nr: 20044543 Decision Date: 07/02/20 Archive Date: 07/02/20 DOCKET NO. 10-15 407 DATE: July 2, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee patellofemoral syndrome is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army form August 2001 to May 2005. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned in June 2011. In January 2013, April 2016, and May 2017, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded the claim for development. In April 2018, the Board denied the claim. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court), and in December 2018, the Court issued an order granting the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). The Veteran’s claim was most recently before the Board in June 2019 wherein the claim was remanded for an additional VA examination with instructions pursuant to the JMR. The Veteran’s claim has now returned to the Board. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for the right knee patellofemoral syndrome is remanded. The Veteran’s claim was remanded for an examination in June 2019. As directed, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) arranged for an examination to take place in November 2019. However, the Veteran failed to report to that examination. The Veteran has offered no reason for his failure to report for the examination. The Board has considered the contemporaneous VA medical records in 2019 and notes that the VA medical center was having some difficulty contacting the Veteran and the Veteran was not appearing for regular visits in the months leading up to his examination. The Veteran’s care team also noted that he is rated at 100 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and therefore he needs more attention to make sure that his care is not lost in the system. Given that the JMR indicated that the previous examination was insufficient and that an adequate examination is required to address the Veteran’s claim, the Board is remanding the claim for an examination. Although VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating his claims, that duty is not a one-way street and it is important that the Veteran make efforts to assist VA in gathering evidence relevant to his claim, including attending the examination(s) scheduled for him. Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214, 224 (2000); see also Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449, 452 (2000). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with appropriate examiner in order to determine the nature and severity of his service-connected right knee patellofemoral syndrome. The examiner must consider the Veteran’s subjective complaints of flare-ups including the testimony given at the August 2011 Board hearing. See VBMS, document labeled Hearing Testimony, receipt date 6/8/2011, pages 3-17. The examiner should identify any symptoms that the Veteran currently manifests or has manifested that are attributable to his service-connected connected right knee patellofemoral syndrome All appropriate testing, including range of motion, should be performed. The examiner must also consider the Veteran’s lay reports of knee instability. The examiner is asked to describe whether pain significantly limits functional ability during flare-ups, and if so, the examiner must estimate range of motion during flares. If the examination does not take place during a flare, the examiner must glean information regarding the flares’ severity, frequency, duration, and functional loss manifestations from the veteran, medical records, and other available sources. Efforts to obtain such information must be documented. If there is no pain and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. The examinations should also record the results of range of motion testing for pain on BOTH active and passive motion AND in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board I. M. Hitchcock 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.