Citation Nr: 21069341 Decision Date: 11/18/21 Archive Date: 11/18/21 DOCKET NO. 17-10 821 DATE: November 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right ankle condition is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1995 to November 1996. The Veteran appealed an April 2015 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) notes that the issue of service connection for a back condition was additionally remanded in the July 2021 Board decision. A September 2021 rating decision granted service connection for lumbar strain. This is considered a full grant of benefits sought regarding service connection for a back condition. The Veteran has not made any further disagreement with the back issue. Therefore, the Board finds that the issue regarding service connection for a back condition is no longer on appeal. The Board will not address this issue. The Board finds that further evidentiary development is necessary and remands the case to ensure compliance with the Board's remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). In July 2021, the Board remanded the issues for a new examination because the October 2019 examinations were inadequate for not properly accounting for flare-ups. The July 2021 Board decision noted that the Veteran had flare-ups of both the right ankle and left knee during the October 2019 examination, but the October 2019 examiner failed to provide an opinion regarding additional limitation of motion during flare-ups. However, the September 2021 examination reports also do not properly elicit sufficient information regarding flare-ups. The September 2021 examiner noted that the Veteran did not have flare-ups, but also noted pain with varying intensity. This suggests that the Veteran's pain varies at ceratin times or with certain activities. The Veteran has stated that his pain depends on certain activities. See September 2015 Veteran statement. Overall, the September 2021 examiner did not elicit sufficient information regarding flare-ups, to include the severity of the Veteran's symptoms and limitation in motion during certain activities in which the Veteran experiences increased pain. Therefore, remand is required for another examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA and/or private treatment records relevant to treatment the Veteran received for his right ankle and left knee conditions that are not already of record. All obtained records should be associated with the evidentiary record. If any identified records are not obtainable (or none exist), the Veteran and his representative should be notified, and the record clearly documented. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his right ankle and left knee conditions. The examiner must test the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing (if applicable). 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 examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the Veteran's condition and discuss the effect of the Veteran's condition on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment 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). (Continued on the next page) 3. After the above development has been completed to the extent possible, readjudicate the claims. If any benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Zheng, 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.