Citation Nr: 21003689 Decision Date: 01/22/21 Archive Date: 01/22/21 DOCKET NO. 15-27 100 DATE: January 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee patella chondromalacia is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The Veteran had active military service from August 1987 to April 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the October 2011 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in September 2020 and was remanded for further development. The Veteran appeared at a November 2018 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee patella chondromalacia is remanded. The Veteran contends that his right knee disability warrants a rating greater than 10 percent. While the record contains contemporaneous VA examinations regarding the Veteran’s right knee disability, the examinations do not comply with the requirements in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016). The examinations, specifically the Veteran’s most recent October 2020 VA knee examination he underwent pursuant to the Board’s September 2020 remand, does not contain pain on weight-bearing range of motion testing. Therefore, a remand is warranted for compliance with Correia. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected right knee disability. 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. In so doing, the examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). In so doing, the examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement based on direct observation, the examiner should provide an estimate, if at all possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran’s statements. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 2. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.