Citation Nr: 21070482 Decision Date: 11/24/21 Archive Date: 11/24/21 DOCKET NO. 14-02 718 DATE: November 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee patellofemoral syndrome (exclusive of a period of a temporary total rating from July 14, 2017 to September 1, 2017) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 2008 to July 2008. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2011 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in March 2018 and November 2020. In the November 2020 decision, the Board remanded the issue on appeal for further evidentiary development. In June 2016, the Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a video conference hearing. A transcript is of record. The hearing was before a now-retired VLJ. In October 2021 correspondence, the Veteran was given the opportunity to request another hearing. The Veteran did not respond to that correspondence within the 30 - day timeframe indicated. Accordingly, the Board will proceed with adjudication of the Veteran's claim. In November 2017, the Veteran's attorney submitted a VA Form 21-22a which did not limit the scope of his representation. The Board is in receipt of November 2020 correspondence from the Veteran's attorney stating that his office is withdrawing from the Veteran's case. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.6 (a)(2), after an appeal has been filed to the Board, a representative may not withdraw their services in the appeal unless good cause is shown on a motion. The record does not reflect that the representative provided good cause for his withdrawal and did not properly file a motion to withdraw. As such, there has not been compliance with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 20.6 (a)(2), and withdrawal of representation is not accepted as valid. Accordingly, he is deemed to still be the Veteran's representative, as reflected above. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee patellofemoral syndrome (exclusive of a period of a temporary total rating from July 14, 2017 to September 1, 2017) is remanded. In his August 2012 VA Form 9 Substantive Appeal the Veteran asserted that he has full range of motion of his right knee only if he is non-weight bearing. At a May 2021 VA Knee Examination, the Veteran reported that he experienced flareups from one to two times monthly lasting for a period of two to three days. During flareups the Veteran stated he is more limited in his ability to use his leg and is bedridden for a few days. During the course of this appeal the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that additional loss during flareups can be considered under the General Rating Formula of an evaluation based on ankylosis if a claimant's functional loss is consistent with the loss contemplated by ankylosis, or if the Veteran's range of motion is functionally equivalent to ankylosis. See Chavis v. McDonough, No. 18-2928, 2021 LEXIS 660 (Vet. App. April 16, 2021). The Board finds that given the description of loss of functionality experienced by the Veteran during knee flare ups, the May 2021 VA examination is incomplete. In light of the holding in Chavis an addendum medical opinion is warranted to inform the Board whether the Veteran's right knee disability is functionally equivalent to ankylosis during flareups. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any updated VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an in-person examination for the Veteran's right knee. (a.) The examiner is asked to elicit and/or report information elicited from the Veteran regarding the frequency, intensity, and duration of his right knee flare ups. (b.) The examiner is asked to offer an opinion whether the range of motion of the Veteran's right knee and any functional loss thereof to include during flareups is functionally equivalent to ankylosis. If there is ankylosis with flare-ups, the nature of the ankylosis should be determined. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Alexander 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.