Citation Nr: 21072440 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 14-34 083 DATE: December 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent, prior to September 29, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for a lumbar spine disability is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from November 2005 to June 2013. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2017, the Veteran testified at a videoconference Board hearing before Judge Alibrando. Following the July 2017 hearing, the Veteran was informed that Judge Alibrando was no longer employed at the Board and was given an opportunity to testify before another judge. See Arneson v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 379 (2011). In August 2021, the Veteran testified at a virtual Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A copy of the transcript has been associated with the Veteran's electronic claims folder. The Board will proceed without a panel decision in this case since the undersigned is the only current VLJ who has held a hearing with the Veteran. See Arneson, supra. All matters are remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to higher ratings for his service-connected knee and back disabilities because he suffers from instability and paralyzing pain. At the Board hearing, he requested another VA examination because the previous examinations did not adequately reflect his current limitations. See Board Hearing Transcript, p.5. He testified that he requested a knee replacement due to his symptoms but was denied one due to his age. Id. at 6. He also testified that his knees caused symptoms of instability. Id. Regarding his back, he testified that he experienced symptoms of paralysis and the inability to feel his arms at times. Id at 9. The Veteran was last afforded VA knee and spine examinations in September 2020. Neither examination reflects the symptoms expressed by the Veteran at the Board hearing. As there is evidence of worsening since the last VA examination, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to obtain new VA examinations to determine the Veteran's current level of severity. See Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281 (1993); see also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997) (a Veteran is entitled to a new examination where there is evidence that the condition may have worsened since the last examination). The examinations should also include requisite testing. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) (precedential finding that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that VA examinations include joint testing for pain on 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. The examiner should specifically comment on any knee instability the Veteran experiences as well as any neurological symptoms manifested by loss of feeling in his upper extremities. There is evidence that the Veteran receives regular treatment at a VA facility. On remand, up to date VA treatment records should be obtained and associated with the Veteran's electronic claims folder. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain up to date VA treatment records. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for VA knee and spine examinations to determine the severity of the Veteran's service-connected bilateral knee and lumbar spine disabilities. The examiner should comment on whether there is weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination, and, if feasible, these determinations should be expressed in terms of the degree of additional range of motion lost. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). The examiner should also be asked to express an opinion as to the degree to which pain limits functional ability during flare-ups and on use. If it is not feasible to do so, the examiner must explain why. The examination report should also include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. See Correia, supra. The examiner should specifically comment on any knee instability the Veteran experiences. See Board Hearing Transcript, p. 6. The examiner should also note any neurological or radicular pain symptoms manifested by loss of feeling in his upper extremities. Id. at 9. 3. Thereafter, readjudicate the issues on appeal as noted above. If the determination remains unfavorable to the Veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) which addresses all evidence associated with the claims file since the last statement of the case. The Veteran and his representative should be afforded the applicable time period to respond. Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Baskerville 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.