Citation Nr: 21063130 Decision Date: 10/13/21 Archive Date: 10/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-48 574 DATE: October 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected right knee limitation of extension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from July 1991 to January 1992. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a December 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2018, the Veteran submitted a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) opt-in election form electing to have all eligible issues currently on appeal processed as a supplemental claim. However, the Veteran did not sign the election form. As such, in June 2018 the AOJ sent the Veteran a correspondence stating that his RAMP opt-in election could not be processed and attached a RAMP opt-in election form for the Veteran to sign and return within 60 days of the date of the letter. The Veteran did not return a signed RAMP opt-in notice. Therefore, the Veteran's claim is not part of the RAMP process. In May 2019, the Board made an unfavorable determination on the Veteran's claim for entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee strain, limitation of flexion. A May 2020 Court Order vacated the Board's decision and adopted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) for additional development and re-adjudication of the claim. Additionally, the JMR included the issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for limitation of extension of the right knee. In a January 2021 decision, the Board remanded the issues of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee strain with degenerative arthritis, limitation of flexion and entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right knee limitation of extension for further development. In a July 2021 rating decision, the RO increased the evaluation for right knee limitation of extension to 30 percent effective April 8, 2015. The RO also severed the evaluation of 10 percent for service-connected right knee strain with degenerative arthritis, limitation of flexion because the Veteran was granted a higher disability rating for his right knee extension and thus allowing the removal of this previously service-connected condition. Therefore, the issue of entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected right knee strain degenerative arthritis, limitation of flexion is no longer on appeal. The Board is cognizant of the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In Rice, the Court held that a claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disability, either expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record, involves an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability and is part of the claim for an increased rating. In this case, the Veteran has not argued, and the record does not otherwise reflect, that the disability at issue renders him unemployable. Accordingly, the Board concludes that a claim for TDIU has not been raised. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 38 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017). 1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for service-connected right knee limitation of extension is remanded. In January 2021, the Board remanded the issue of an increased rating for a right knee disability for VA examinations. Specifically, the Board requested in its remand instructions that a retrospective opinion be obtained with regard to the Veteran's functional limitation during flare-ups and after repetitive use over a period of time. The Veteran was examined in March 2021 and June 2021 for his right knee disability; however, these VA examinations did not provide a retrospective opinion as requested for in the prior January 2021 Board remand. Therefore, a remand is warranted for a VA retrospective addendum medical opinion to address such matters. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a VA addendum medical retrospective opinion to determine the nature and severity of the Veteran's right knee disability prior to March 3, 2021 (date of current VA examination). If the examiner cannot render an opinion without discussing with the Veteran, then the Veteran should be scheduled for an interview and/or an examination. A copy of this remand and claims file must be reviewed. The VA examiner should address the following: (a.) For the appeal period prior to March 3, 2021, describe whether pain has significantly limited functional ability during flare-ups and after repetitive use over a period of time, and if so, the examiner must estimate the ranges of motion during flare-ups and after repetitive use over a period of time. Particular attention should be given to the prior VA examinations in September 2015 and February 2018. The examiner must glean information regarding the severity, frequency, duration, and functional loss manifestations from the Veteran, medical records, and other available resources. Efforts to obtain such information must be documented. A rationale for all requested opinions should be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she should provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner should explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Crawford, 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.