Citation Nr: 21068992 Decision Date: 11/17/21 Archive Date: 11/17/21 DOCKET NO. 06-02 333 DATE: November 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative joint disease, right ankle is remanded. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to October 26, 2004 for degenerative arthritis, left ankle, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter is remanded. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to August 1, 2018 for left total knee replacement, in excess of 30 percent prior to August 26, 2021, and in excess of 60 percent thereafter is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from February 1978 to September 1984 and April 1985 to April 1988. When this case was before the Board in November 2018, April 2020, October 2020, and July 2021 the above-noted issues were remanded for additional development. The case has since been returned for further appellate review. REASONS FOR REMAND Although most unfortunate and frustrating, the Board finds additional development remains necessary prior to final adjudication of the issues on appeal. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Further, a remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Following the Board's most recent July 2021 remand, the Veteran again underwent VA ankle and knee examinations in August 2021. However, the examiner again failed to provide both weight bearing and non-weight bearing range of motion assessments. On numerous occasions the Board has indicated that to be considered adequate, a musculoskeletal examination must include an assessment of the veteran's flare-ups, as well as range of motion measurements in weight bearing, non-weight bearing, and in passive motion. See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017); see also Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). As such, a remand is again required in order to obtain these critical evaluation assessments. Further, in a report submitted in October 2021 the Veteran reported experiencing extensive functional limitations related to his service-connected bilateral ankle and left knee disabilities. On remand, a comprehensive assessment of those functional limitations would be helpful. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to fully assess the severity of the Veteran's service-connected bilateral ankle and left knee disabilities. 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 any 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 that the required testing is not necessary, he or she should be directed to clearly explain why that is so. Finally, the examiner is also asked to provide concrete examples of functional impairments caused by the Veteran's service-connected bilateral ankle and left knee disabilities. The types of impairments the examiner should address include, but are not limited to, walking, sitting, lifting and standing limitations. If possible, the examiner should expound on how long the Veteran can sit or stand, how far he can walk, and how much weight he is able to bear given his bilateral lower extremity impairments. The examiner must discuss and consider the Veteran's competent lay statements. 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.