Citation Nr: 21003178 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 13-04 460 DATE: January 19, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right ankle disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a thoracolumbar spine disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1996 to August 2000. 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right ankle disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disorder is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disorder is remanded. 4. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a thoracolumbar spine disorder is remanded. In an April 2020 remand, the Board instructed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain additional VA examinations for the issues on appeal to determine the functional impact of flare-ups on the disorders. See also December 2018 Board Remand. The Board notes that the AOJ made several attempts through both mail and phone calls to contact the Veteran with no success. While the Board notes and appreciates the AOJ’s attempt to schedule the VA examinations, a remand is needed to give the Veteran an additional chance to attend VA examinations. Over the course of the appeal, the Veteran has demonstrated a desire to pursue these claims, including attending previous VA examinations and a Board hearing. However, the Board reminds the Veteran that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Therefore, without the Veteran’s participation, VA will be unable to obtain additional VA examinations that comply with Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33 (2017), Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016), or that cure any additional defects in the examinations of record. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims folder updated VA treatment records, if any. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his right ankle, left knee, right knee, and thoracolumbar spine disorders. The examiner should address the limitation of motion, subluxation, meniscus issues, and any other disorder present in the Veteran’s knees. The examiner must elicit a response from the Veteran regarding whether he has experienced any flare-ups of these disorders during the course of the appeal. The examiner should address the Veterans’ previous reports of flare-ups in both knees and the thoracolumbar spine (see April 2018, October 2013, and September 2010 VA Examinations; May 2010 Private Medical Records), and reconcile those reports with the October 2019 VA examiner’s indication that no flare-ups occur; additionally, the examiner should address the Veteran’s report of flare-ups in his right ankle during a September 2010 VA examination and reconcile that report with the April 2018 and October 2019 VA examiners’ indication that no flare-ups occur. In order to comply with Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33 (2017), the examiner is asked to describe whether pain, weakness, fatigue and/or incoordination significantly limits functional ability during flares or repetitive use, and if so, the examiner must estimate range of motion during flares or repetitive use. The examiner should have the Veteran describe and/or demonstrate the extent of motion loss during flares or repetitive use and provide the extent of motion loss described in terms of degrees. If there is no pain and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. The examiner should comment as to whether there is any medical reason to accept or reject the Veteran’s description of reduced range of motion during flares or repetitive use. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Howell, 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.