Citation Nr: 21064837
Decision Date: 10/21/21	Archive Date: 10/21/21

DOCKET NO. 17-43 703
DATE: October 21, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to higher disability ratings for left knee disability is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active service from in the United States Navy from September 1987 to March 1994.  This matter is on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision.  In February 2020, the Board remanded the appeal for additional evidentiary development.

Entitlement to higher disability ratings for left knee disability is remanded.

In February 2021, the Veteran's representative argued that the October 2020 VA examination was inadequate and that there was not substantial compliance with the February 2020 Board remand directives.  Upon review, the October 2020 VA examination does not contain passive range of motion measurements.  Therefore, the examinatin is inadequate.   See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016).  Additionally, the VA examiner indicated that there was pain on motion that caused functional loss but did not specify when pain began.  Accordingly, a remand is required to afford the Veteran an adequate VA examination. 

 

The matters are REMANDED for the following actions:

1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected left knee disability. 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.  The examiner must also attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups.  The VA examiner must specify at which point during range of motion testing pain begins.  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)

2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal.  If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and 

 

provide an opportunity to respond.  If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review.

 

 

DAVID L. WIGHT

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	R.R. Watkins, 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.