Citation Nr: 21071390 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 18-48 401 DATE: November 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for status post open reduction-internal fixation of fracture of left hip with limitation of flexion (left hip flexion limitation) is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for status post open reduction-internal fixation of fracture of left hip with painful extension (left hip painful extension) is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for the period prior to February 17, 2021 and a rating in excess of 10 percent for the period thereafter for status post open reduction-internal fixation of fracture of left hip with painful abduction and adduction (left hip painful abduction and adduction) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1989 to March 1990. In an August 2019 decision, the Board denied the Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for status post open reduction-internal fixation of fracture of left hip with limitation of flexion (left hip flexion limitation), a compensable rating for status post open reduction-internal fixation of fracture of left hip with painful extension (left hip painful extension), and a compensable rating for status post open reduction-internal fixation of fracture of left hip with painful abduction(left hip painful abduction). The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In June 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) by the Veteran's attorney and the VA General Counsel. In October 2020, the Board remanded the claim for development consistent with the JMR. In a May 2021 decision, the Board remanded the claim for further development. Although delay is regrettable, the Board finds that additional development is required prior to adjudicating the issues on appeal. Specifically, in the June 2020 JMR, the parties agreed that the November 2017 and March 2019 VA examinations of record did not comply with the requirements in Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 34-36 (2017). The VA examiners did not attempt to elicit relevant information regarding the description of the Veteran's flare-ups and any additional functional loss suffered during flare-ups. Further, while the examiners stated that an opinion could not be provided without resort to speculation, they did not indicate that the speculation was due to lack of knowledge within the medical community. Upon examination in February 2021, the examiner noted that the Veteran denied flare-ups and any functional loss or functional impairment the hip. However, while the Veteran did not report current flare-ups, the examiner did not elicit any information regarding the severity, frequency, duration, or functional loss regarding the Veteran's history of documented flare-ups. Upon examination in June 2021, the Veteran again endorsed flare-ups, and upon examination, the examiner estimated the range of motion during the Veteran's current flare-ups and after repetitive use based upon interview with the Veteran. While the June 2021 examination addressed the severity of current flare-ups, there are still outstanding medical questions that need to be resolved prior to adjudication as to the Veteran's prior flare-up history, and what appear to be potential improvements in range of motion during the pendency of the appeal period. An addendum opinion should be obtained to specifically address the progression of the Veteran's hip disability, to include reports of historical flare-ups. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to address the severity of her service-connected hip disabilities, as well as for the examiner to provide a retrospective medical opinion regarding these historical reports of flare-ups. The claims file must be made available for review, and the examiner must note that a review was completed. The examiner should review the record and provide a retrospective medical opinion addressing the functional impact, if any, of the Veteran's prior history of flare-ups. Please discuss the progression of the severity of the Veteran's disability, and if it is possible to estimate functional loss in terms of range of motion lost after repeated use or during flare-ups, this should be done. If not possible, an explanation as to why should be provided. 2. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Bristow Williams, 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.