Citation Nr: 21003926 Decision Date: 01/25/21 Archive Date: 01/25/21 DOCKET NO. 17-06 819 DATE: January 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating higher than 10 percent for right knee patellofemoral syndrome with painful motion during flexion is remanded. Entitlement to an initial disability rating higher than 10 percent for right knee patellofemoral syndrome with instability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 2009 to December 2013. In October 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) granted the Veteran’s claim of service connection for right knee patellofemoral syndrome, among other claims, and assigned an initial noncompensable disability rating. The Veteran timely appealed the assignment of an initial noncompensable disability rating for service-connected right knee patellofemoral syndrome. In June 2019, the Veteran testified during a videoconference Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. In October 2019, the Board granted initial evaluations of 10 percent, but no higher, for right knee patellofemoral syndrome with painful motion during flexion and right knee patellofemoral syndrome with instability, as well as an award of total disability based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In September 2020, the Court vacated those portions of the Board’s October 2019 decision that denied the Veteran’s claims for disability ratings higher than 10 percent for right knee patellofemoral syndrome with painful motion during flexion and right knee patellofemoral syndrome with instability, and remanded the matters for additional development and readjudication in compliance with directives specified in an August 2020 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by counsel for the Veteran and the VA. Specifically, the JMPR indicated that the Board erred by finding that VA’s duty to assist was satisfied by an October 2015 examination and by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. The JMPR indicated that on remand the Board obtain an examination that complies with Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) or explain why such testing is not necessary or feasible, and address the Veteran’s representative’s Board hearing testimony regarding his right knee disability, to include whether it is competent. While the Veteran was most recently afforded a VA examination regarding his service-connected right knee disability in October 2015, the examination did not comply with the requirements in Correia. Specifically, the October 2015 VA examiner did not test the right knee for pain on passive motion or weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing. Therefore, a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a right knee examination. Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA orthopedic examination by an appropriate clinician to assess the current severity of his service-connected right knee disability. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the current disability benefits questionnaire. The examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing of the right knee.  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 specific measurements, or opinions regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether any such 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). Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Styer, 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.