Citation Nr: 20046980 Decision Date: 07/14/20 Archive Date: 07/14/20 DOCKET NO. 15-44 542 DATE: July 14, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease (DDD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1973 to June 1973 and March 2003 to September 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was remanded in July 2019 for further development. In June 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of that hearing is of record. Since the Board’s remand, the issue of entitlement to service connection for right foot osteoarthritis was granted. See June 2020 rating decision. Despite what the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) stated in that rating decision, it is well-established that a grant of service connection is a full grant of benefits sought on appeal. Issues regarding disagreement with the rating assigned or effective date assigned pursuant to a grant of service connection are downstream issues requiring new initiation of appellate review. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, as a matter of law, the issue of entitlement to a compensable evaluation for right foot osteoarthritis is not before the Board. If the Veteran disagrees with the rating assigned in the June 2020 rating decision, he may timely request review pursuant to the three options available to him (supplemental claim, higher level review, or notice of disagreement) as explained in the notification letter attached to that decision. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for lumbar spine DDD is remanded. The Board remanded this matter, in part, due to an inadequate VA examination. See July 2019 Board remand. The Veteran underwent a new VA examination in October 2019, but range of motion measurements were not provided for weight-bearing or non-weight-bearing circumstances. Thus, the examination is inadequate, and remand is necessary. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 165-170 (2016); see also Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should arrange for an orthopedic examination of the Veteran to assess the current severity of his service-connected lumbar spine DDD. The examiner must review the entire record in conjunction with the examination and note such review was conducted. Pathology, symptoms (frequency and severity), and any associated impairment of function should be described in detail. All indicated tests or studies should be completed. Range of motion measurements should be included for active and passive motion in both weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing circumstances. If pain is noted, the point in the range of motion at which pain starts should be clearly noted. If feasible, the examiner must assess the additional functional impairment on repeated use or during flare-ups in terms of the degree of additional range of motion loss, using lay observations specifically elicited from the Veteran. If not feasible, the examiner must provide a detailed explanation and rationale for why such could not be accomplished. Specifically, if the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered; a rationale based on the fact that the Veteran is not having a flare-up at the time of the examination will not be deemed adequate. 2. If upon completion of the above action the issue remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Sandler, 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.