Citation Nr: 21072086 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 20-14 064 DATE: December 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for the period prior to August 17, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for a lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1987 to April 1990. This matter came before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2021, the Board remanded the issue on appeal for further development. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for the period prior to August 17, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for a lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis The May 2021 Board remand asked for a new VA back examination. A VA back examination was conducted in June 2021. The June 2021 VA examiner noted pain on range of motion (ROM) testing but did not note where in the ROM pain began. This does not allow the Board to properly assess the functional impairment caused by the disability. Examinations for joint disabilities generally must include range of motion measurements. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 169 (2016). The examiner should also note whether pain on motion is present, and, if so, where in the range of motion the pain sets in and whether that pain causes functional loss. Id. Therefore, a remand for a new examination is needed. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his lumbar spine disability. The claim file should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner and the examination report should state a review of the file was completed. All findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should identify all lumbar spine pathology found to be present. The examiner should conduct range of motion studies. The joints involved should be tested in both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. The examiner should describe any pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, instability of station and incoordination present. If pain is noted, the point during range of motion at which pain starts must be clearly indicated. The examiner should also state whether the examination is taking place during a period of flare-up. If not, the examiner should ask the Veteran to describe the flare-ups he experiences, including: frequency, duration, characteristics, precipitating and alleviating factors, severity and/or extent of functional impairment he experiences during a flare-up of symptoms and/or after repeated use over time. Based on the Veteran's lay statements and the other evidence of record, the examiner should provide an opinion estimating any additional degrees of limited motion caused by functional loss during a flare-up or after repeated use over time. If the examiner cannot estimate the degrees of additional range of motion loss during flare-ups or after repetitive use without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training). 2. If upon completion of the above action the appeal remains denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Y. Akkad 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.