Citation Nr: 21004098 Decision Date: 01/26/21 Archive Date: 01/26/21 DOCKET NO. 12-15 282 DATE: January 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee degenerative joint disease, status post arthroscopic repair, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection to a right knee disability, to include as secondary to service-connected disabilities, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active Coast Guard duty from October 1970 to November 1974 and from January 1975 to June 1999, when he retired with more than 25 years of active service. This case initially came to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. A hearing was conducted by Travel Board in December 2015 before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge, at which the Veteran testified; a transcript is of record. The Board issued a June 2016 decision, which, in pertinent part, denied entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability and denied an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee disability. Following the issuance of the June 2016 Board decision, the Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for a right knee disability and the denial of an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee disability to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In December 2016, the parties submitted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). The JMPR directed that the Board provide further explanation of the denial of service connection for right knee disability and provide further explanation of the denial of an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee disability. Specifically, more thorough consideration of a separate compensable rating for meniscal impairment of the knee was requested. The Court issued an Order incorporating the JMPR in December 2016. In August 2017, this case was again remanded for further development consistent with the Court’s December 2016 Order. The matter has now returned to the Board for further appellate review. In accordance with the Board’s August 2017 remand, an additional VA medical opinion was obtained with respect to the Veteran’s claims of service connection for a right knee disorder and an increased evaluation for a left knee disability. With respect to the Veteran’s claim of service connection for a right knee disorder, the March 2020 VA addendum medical opinion provided the incorrect opinion. Specifically, the examiner provided an opinion for a pre-existing medical condition, and not an opinion as to either direct or secondary service connection. Likewise, with respect to the Veteran’s request for an increased evaluation for his service-connected left knee disability, the examiner did not provide any detailed discussion regarding all functional impairment of the Veteran’s left knee disability as directed by the Board’s August 2017 remand. Accordingly, the Board finds that the March 2020 VA addendum opinion fails to substantially comply with the prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (a remand by the Board confers on the appellant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders). Therefore, to ensure compliance with the August 2017 remand directives, and to ensure that any decision rendered in the Veteran’s appeal is based on sufficient evidence, the Board finds that another VA addendum opinion must be obtained with respect to his claims. The Veteran’s claim of entitlement to a TDIU is impacted by the outcome of these claims and therefore, is inextricably intertwined with this issue. All issues “inextricably intertwined” with an issue certified for appeal are to be identified and developed prior to appellate review. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). Consequently, the Board finds that the TDIU issue should be remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a right knee disorder. If additional examination is needed to resolve these matters, such examination should be scheduled. In particular, the examiner should assign a diagnosis for each current disorder of the right knee. As to each current right knee disorder, the examiner should address the following questions: (a) Is it at least as likely as not, i.e., is there a 50/50 chance, that the right knee disorder was manifested while the Veteran was in service, or was incurred during that service, or is etiologically related to an injury or event during the Veteran’s service (essentially from October 1970 to June 1999); (b) Is it at least as likely as not, i.e., is there a 50/50 chance, that the onset of the right knee disorder was proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected left knee disability or any other service-connected disability, or that the current severity of the right knee disability is aggravated by a service-connected disability or disabilities. Please include a discussion of whether carpal tunnel impairs the use of cane or crutches such as to put increased stress on the right knee, given the extent of the left knee impairment. 2. Obtain an addendum opinion from a VA examiner to determine the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected left knee disability. Again, if additional examination is needed, it should be scheduled. The examiner should detail all functional impairment, to including, but not limited to, limitation of motion, any locking or instability of the left knee. The examiner should indicate if there is currently meniscus or other functional impairment of the knee that manifests in other than painful limitation of motion. The examiner is also requested to review past examinations and studies of the left knee and set out whether there was separate functional impairment of the knee manifested in symptoms or findings of other than painful limitation of motion, such as locking, instability, or other such finding. All pertinent findings should be set forth. If painful motion of the knee is the principal or only manifestation, that should be set out as well. 3. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of entitlement to a TDIU. The examiner should specifically consider the private vocational assessment submitted by the Veteran’s representative in November 2020. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Scanlan, 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.