Citation Nr: A21016898 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 190627-12063 DATE: October 19, 2021 REMANDED An initial compensable rating for a right inguinal hernia repair. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1987 to November 1990. The case is on appeal from a March 2019 rating decision. In June 2019, the Veteran filed a decision review request and elected Direct Review. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 (b)(1). In February 2020, the Board denied service connection for right and left foot conditions and for a compensable rating for residuals of right inguinal hernia repair. The Veteran then appealed the Board's February 2020 decision in November 2020 with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Both parties subsequently agreed to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), which was submitted to the Court in April 2021. Consistent with the JMPR, the Court's May 2021 order dismissed the claims of service connection for right and left foot conditions and remanded the claim of an initial compensable rating for residuals of a right inguinal hernia repair to the Board for further appellate review. An initial compensable rating for residuals of a scar due to a right inguinal hernia repair. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2019, upon which he was assigned a noncompensable rating for a right inguinal hernia repair. During this examination, the Veteran complained of residuals of pain at the site of the repair. He stated that the pain is worse with use, especially working out. He also reported using mesh over the surgery site/scar, but feels this irritating the repair. Additionally, he reported that when he coughs, or with use, pain is sharp and very uncomfortable. He stated when he sits in a car or for a period of 45 minutes to an hour, he will have some numbness in the right leg while he is sitting only. When he gets up it goes away. The Veteran stated his pain comes and goes and is more during the day than not. He further stated his daily average pain level most of the day is a 5 on the ten scale of pain. He also used Ibuprofen daily. Veteran states the hernia repair is intact. Despite the reports provided by the Veteran, the VA examiner noted during the examination that the Veteran's scar was not painful. As such, the VA examiner did not properly characterize the painfulness of the scar and the functional loss the Veteran experiences as a result of the right inguinal hernia repair. Additionally, the examiner did not fully characterize the additional functional loss the Veteran experiences as a result of flare-ups of his right inguinal hernia repair. See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017) (outlining VA examiners' obligation to elicit information regarding flare-ups of a musculoskeletal disability if the examination is not conducted during such a flare-up, and to use this information to characterize additional functional loss during flare-ups). As such, the RO's reliance on this inadequate opinion represents a pre-decisional error in VA's duty to assist that must be corrected on remand. Therefore, the Board finds that an additional VA examination is warranted to assess the severity of the service-connected residuals of the right inguinal hernia repair in compliance with Sharp. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination and scar assessment by an appropriate medical professional to assess the current severity of his service-connected right inguinal hernia repair. If the examination is not conducted during a flare-up, the functional impact or limitations of a flare-up, to include frequency and severity, should be estimated based on the Veteran's reports. If this cannot be done, the examiner should explain why. The examiner should assess whether any right leg numbness is due to the right inguinal hernia repair and whether it affects any specific nerve. The examiner should also perform a scar assessment. A complete rationale should be provided for any opinion reached. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Becton, 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.