Citation Nr: 21064842 Decision Date: 10/21/21 Archive Date: 10/21/21 DOCKET NO. 18-00 620 DATE: October 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) syndrome, bilaterally, with degenerative changes prior to May 9, 2019, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1992 to November 2003. In December 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. REASONS FOR REMAND While additional delay is unfortunate, the Board finds further development is required before the Veteran's claim is decided. Initially, the Board notes that in a recent decision, Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), the Court explained that VA examiners must do all that can be reasonably done to become informed about a veteran's reported musculoskeletal flare-ups prior to providing an opinion on functional loss during flares. Specifically, the Court found an examiner must consider and discuss all procurable and assembled data such as the frequency, duration, characteristics, precipitating and alleviating factors, and the severity of the flare-ups, before concluding an assessment of the functional loss during flares could not be provided without resorting to speculation. In this case, the Veteran provided a disability benefit questionnaire completed by her private clinician in January 2020. Though the clinician noted additional manifestations during flare-ups, he failed to state whether an assessment of the range of motion lost during a flare-up could be provided based on the facts given by the Veteran. Additionally, since that time, the Veteran has provided other private treatment records indicating a potential worsening of the disability since the last VA examination, which was performed years ago. As such, the Board finds a new examination is necessary to determine the current severity of the disability. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994). Additionally, in the course of the March 2020 remand, the Board instructed the RO to conduct indicated development to obtain the Veteran's private treatment records from Dr. M.D. Though the RO did attempt to obtain those records, it appears the RO misspelled the doctor's last name, and it also appears the clinician has since changed locations of his practice. On remand, the RO should attempt to obtain these records at the correct location. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(1). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Undertake appropriate development to obtain the Veteran's private treatment records from Dr. M.D. If any requested records are deemed unavailable, the record should be annotated to reflect such and the Veteran notified. 2. Then, afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the current severity of the Veteran's TMJ disability. All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Ensure the examiner provides all information required for rating purposes, to specifically include both active and passive range of motion testing, as well as weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing range of motion assessments. In addition, the examiner must consider and discuss all procurable and assembled data such as the frequency, duration, characteristics, precipitating and alleviating factors, and the severity of the flare-ups, and then provide an assessment of the functional loss during flares, if possible in degrees of motion lost. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes any required testing is not necessary, he or she should be directed to clearly explain why that is so. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Fraser, 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.