Citation Nr: 21067014
Decision Date: 11/03/21	Archive Date: 11/03/21

DOCKET NO. 14-28 109A
DATE: November 3, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to July 17, 2018, for the low back disability is remanded.

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent from July 17, 2018, to October 16, 2020, for the low back disability is remanded. 

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent from October 15, 2020, for a low back disability is remanded.  

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for chronic sinusitis is remanded.  

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran had active service from June to August 1984, November 1984 to August 1985, February 1987 to July 1989, and September 1989 to June 1998.  

A videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge was held at the RO in October 2018.

This matter was previously before the Board in May 2021, at which time it was remanded for additional development.  Unfortunately, all requested development was not performed.  Notably, it does not appear that the records scanned into VistA imaging have been associated with the file. This must be done.  See Stegall v: West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).  

In light of the need for remand, the Board finds the record would benefit if the 2021 VA examiner were to provide an estimate for the range of flexion suggested by a finding of "fingertips to knee" as reported in a January 2019 private treatment record. 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Associate the VistA Imaging records with the file.  If any requested records are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified of such

2. Request an addendum from the August 2021 VA "back" examiner.  The examiner should consider the January 2019 private treatment record and attempt to quantify the degree of flexion suggested by "fingertips to knee."  If a specific estimate is not possible, the examiner should provide a range, such as whether it suggests flexion to 30 degrees or less, 31 to 60 degrees, 61 to 85 degrees, or greater than 85 degrees.  If it is not possible to provide the requested opinion 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

 

 

T. REYNOLDS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	N. Snyder, 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.