Citation Nr: 21064375
Decision Date: 10/20/21	Archive Date: 10/20/21

DOCKET NO. 14-36 446
DATE: October 20, 2021

REMANDED

1. An initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right ankle disability.

2. A temporary total evaluation for a right ankle disability due to convalescence under 38 C.F.R. § 4.30.

 

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1994 to November 1996.

The case is on appeal from a January 2010 rating decision.

In November 2017, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing.

In an April 2018 decision, the Board remanded the claims on appeal for additional development.  The Board also remanded claims of service connection for right and left foot disorders for issuance of a statement of the case (SOC).  The RO issued an SOC for the foot disorder claims in January 2019 and a VA Form 9 has not been submitted for such claims.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.22, 19.52.

1. An initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right ankle disability.

2. A temporary total evaluation for a right ankle disability due to convalescence under 38 C.F.R. § 4.30

The Veteran contends that he should have a higher initial rating for his service-connected right ankle disability.  He has also requested a temporary total rating for this condition due to the need for convalescence.

The April 2018 Board remand requested another examination for the right ankle claim to obtain findings consistent with Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) and Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017).  The Veteran was afforded another VA examination for the right ankle claim in May 2019.

However, a remand is necessary to obtain an estimation of the Veteran's right ankle ranges of motion during flareups at the time of the January 2010 and August 2010 examinations.  The temporary total rating claim is also remanded as it is intertwined with the right ankle claim.  

These claims are REMANDED for the following action:

Forward the claims file to an appropriate examiner to assess the Veteran's right ankle disability.  Following a review of the claims file, the examiner should estimate the amount in degrees of ranges of motion lost due to flare-ups experienced by the Veteran at the time of the VA examinations conducted in January 2010 and August 2010.

If the examiner cannot provide some or all of the requested opinions regarding flareups, he or she should explain why such opinions cannot be provided.

A rationale should be provided for opinions expressed.

 

 

RYAN T. KESSEL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Jimerfield, David

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.