Citation Nr: 21004495 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 12-00 116A DATE: January 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for residuals of the left distal radius fracture is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1971 to February 1975. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran’s claim was previously before the Board in November 2017. The claim has since been returned for further appellate review. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for residuals of the left distal radius fracture is remanded. Unfortunately, there has not been substantial compliance with the Board’s previous remand directives regarding the issue. Another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). A November 2017 Board decision remanded the matter for a new VA examination that complied with the requirements of Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). Following the November 2017 Board remand, a VA examination was attempted to be scheduled; however, the RO canceled the examination indicating the Veteran failed to RSVP. The RO indicated the Veteran was called to verify if he would be able to attend a VA examination for his left wrist and a letter inquiring the same was also sent. Review of the record reveals the Veteran has requested several address changes and correspondences from the RO have been sent to several different addresses. Of importance, the record indicates that a July 2018 notice of a request for physical examination was sent to an address that was not the most current address. Additionally, in August 2018, the Veteran submitted a request for change of address, but the RO did not attempt to resend a notice of request for physical examination to the updated address. Based on the Board’s review, the Veteran may not have been afforded a new VA examination because notice of examination was not sent to his most recent address. Thus, remand is required in order to comply with previous remand directives by affording the Veteran a new VA examination to determine the severity of the Veteran’s left distal radius fracture. Additionally, because it is unclear whether recent communications and documents have, in fact, been sent to the correct address, on remand, the RO should verify the Veteran’s current address. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Take the necessary steps to verify the Veteran’s current mailing address. Verification efforts must be documented, and such documentation associated with the claims file. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected left distal radius fracture. 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). (Continued on the next page)   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). 3. Finally, after completing all of the above, and any additional development deemed warranted, readjudicate the claim. If such action does not grant in full the benefit claimed, the RO should provide the Veteran and his attorney a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to this Board for appellate review. C. TRUEBA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. McDuffie, 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.