Citation Nr: 21000715 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 15-00 305A DATE: January 6, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected thoracolumbar spine, degenerative joint disease, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1984 to November 2012. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in September 2016 and a transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran’s claim for entitlement to a higher initial disability rating for the service-connected thoracolumbar spine, degenerative joint disease, was partially granted in a May 2018 Board decision, which awarded a 20 percent rating. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Pursuant to a joint motion for partial remand (JMPR) granted by the Court in August 2019, the portion of the May 2018 Board decision that denied an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the service-connected thoracolumbar spine, degenerative joint disease, was vacated, and the matter was remanded for obtaining an adequate examination. Specifically, the Court held that the May 2018 Board decision erred in relying on the April 2015 VA examination that failed to comply with various pertinent legal authorities. Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016); Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 35 (2017). In March 2020, the Board remanded this issue in part to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of this disability. In this remand, the Board specifically requested that the examiner test for pain on both active and passive motion, and on weight bearing and non-weight bearing. It was requested that the examiner express the degree of functional loss in terms of degree(s) at which pain begins, and that the examiner explain why, if such testing could not be performed. In November 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. At this examination, the examiner recorded the Veteran’s range of motion. It was indicated that no pain was noted on range of motion testing, although pain was noted with repetitive use. However, the examiner indicated at the end of the report that there was objective evidence of pain on non-weight bearing testing of the back, but did not identify the degree at which the pain began on such testing, as requested in the remand. This issue must regrettably be remanded once again in order to obtain this information. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Return the claims file to the VA examiner who conducted the November 2020 VA examination for review. If the same examiner is not available, the file may be provided to another appropriate VA examiner. Upon review of the claims file, the examiner should state the degree of functional loss in terms of degree(s) at which pain begins on non-weight bearing, as noted in the examination report. If additional in-person examination or testing is needed, such should be provided. If any requested findings are not possible without resort to mere speculation, are not feasible, or otherwise cannot be provided, then the examiner must explain why with a full supporting rationale. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Durham, 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.