Citation Nr: 21062644 Decision Date: 10/08/21 Archive Date: 10/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-04 899 DATE: October 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for residuals of a right fibula fracture is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1964 until his honorable retirement in March 1986. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38U.S.C. §7107(a)(2); 38C.F.R. §20.900(c). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision by the Roanoke, Virginia RO of the VA. In November 2020, the Veteran testified at a videoconference Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), sitting at the Board in Washington, District of Columbia. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record on appeal. During the hearing, the undersigned held the record open for 30 days to allow for the submission of additional evidence. In July 2021, the Board remanded the issues on appeal for further development, and the case has since been returned to the Board. The Board finds that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has not substantially complied with the remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board also notes that since the most recent Board remand decision, the Veteran has been granted total disability due to individual unemployability effective May 9, 2012. Thus, the Veteran's disability evaluation is equivalent to a 100 percent evaluation. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, a remand is again 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. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for residuals of a right fibula fracture is remanded. The Veteran contends that his right leg experiences swelling whenever he walks or stands up for a prolonged period of time. In its July 2021 decision, the Board remanded the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for residuals of the Veteran's right fibula fracture. Specifically, the Board found that the May 2021 VA ankle examination failed to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, duration, and degree of functional loss during flare-ups. Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App.26, 34-36 (2017). The Board notes that the May 2021 VA knee examination did elicit this information regarding his associated right knee disability. Upon remand, the RO obtained an updated VA examination regarding the Veteran's knee but did not obtain an updated examination of the Veteran's ankle. As such, the examination is inadequate. The Board notes that during the Veteran's July 2021 knee examination, he specifically mentioned issues with his ankle. Remand is required to obtain an examination of the Veteran's ankle in compliance with Sharp and the directives of the Board's July 2021 remand decision. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination of his right ankle and lower leg by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected residuals of fracture to right fibula with degenerative changes. 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). Furthermore, 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). L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.