Citation Nr: 21072239 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 14-38 283 DATE: December 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 30 percent from October 19, 2018 for impingement syndrome of the right shoulder, status post arthroscopy, subacromial decompression and open biceps tenodesis (major) (hereinafter right shoulder disability) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1978 to January 1982, and from August 2004 and November 2005. This matter is on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2014 rating decision. A hearing was held by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in August 2017. The claim was remanded by the Board in June 2018. In April 2020, a rating decision increased the Veteran's right shoulder disability rating to 30 percent effective December 7, 2018. In a July 2021 rating decision, the Board denied an increased rating in excess of 20 percent prior to October 19, 2018, increased the rating to 30 percent as of October 19, 2018, and remanded the issue of an increased rating in excess of 30 percent thereafter. Thus, the issue currently on appeal to the Board is an increase in excess of 30 percent from October 19, 2018 (excluding a temporary total evaluation from June 28, 2019 to July 31, 2019). In the July 2021 remand, the Board noted the finding of muscle atrophy in the September 2019 VA examination, but the finding of no muscle atrophy in the November 2020 VA examination. Additionally, both examiners indicated suspicion of a rotator cuff condition, but it is unclear what functional impact, if any, such would have on his right shoulder disability. To address the above, the Board directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction to obtain an addendum VA medical opinion from the September 2019 or November 2020 VA examiner or another practitioner with similar expertise. The examiner was requested to provide an opinion on the level of impact and contribution, if any, that the found rotator cuff issues and muscle atrophy had on the functional loss and ability of the Veteran's right shoulder disability. An addendum opinion was obtained from a different examiner in September 2021. The examiner stated the following: "Muscle atrophy is not noted on Shoulder DBQ dated 11/11/20. Rotator cuff issues will decrease range of motion and an inability to perform daily activities like reaching items above your head, washing hair, not able to sleep on the affected shoulder or throwing overhead." The Board finds this opinion inadequate; the examiner merely stated muscle atrophy was not found in November 2020 and gave a generalized statement on how a rotator cuff condition could impact activities of daily living. It was not specific to the Veteran's condition, as directed by the Board in July 2021. While the Board regrets the additional delay, the remand directives have not been substantially complied with. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (A remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand order). A new examination is required to physically examine the Veteran and determine the existence of muscle atrophy, reconciling the discrepancy between the 2019 and 2020 examinations, and determine the existence of a rotator cuff condition and, if present, its functional impact on the Veteran's disability. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule a VA examination for the Veteran to determine whether he has muscle atrophy in the right shoulder as well as a right rotator cuff condition. If present, the examiner must explain the functional impact they have on the Veteran's disability and whether they result in additional functional loss. If not, the examiner must address the past findings and provide a detailed medical rationale for his or her conclusion. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Carroll, 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.