Citation Nr: 21073484 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-26 059 DATE: December 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a higher disability rating than 20 percent prior to January 16, 2020, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, for service-connected spinal stenosis with degenerative disc disease L4-L5 lumbar spine, with spondylosis and dextro-scoliosis, and thoracic spondylosis, is remanded. Entitlement to a higher disability rating than 10 percent for service-connected radiculopathy, left lower extremity, is remanded. Entitlement to a higher disability rating than 10 percent for service-connected radiculopathy, right lower extremity, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1997 to June 2001. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision in May 2014 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2019, and the transcript is of record. In a December 2020 decision, the Board denied these claims. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim (Court). In an August 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the parties requested that the Court vacate and remand the December 2020 Board decision for the Board to (1) obtain an examination for the Veteran's back disability that adequately addresses his limitation in range of motion, functional loss, and pain in weight bearing per Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016); Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 32 (2017), and (2) provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases regarding discussion of the Veteran's radiculopathy, after also citing to Johnson v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 245, 255 (2018) (holding that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases when it did not explain its benchmark for "very frequent" as used in the relevant diagnostic code) and Buczynski v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 221, 224 (2011) (finding it insufficient for the Board to simply state that a claimant's degree of impairment lies at a certain level without providing an adequate explanation). Therefore, it is necessary to remand this case to obtaining a new examination that adequately discusses the Veteran's limitation in range of motion, functional loss, and pain in weight bearing. Since the new examination will likely include findings pertinent to radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities, the Board finds it necessary to remand these as issues "inextricably intertwined" with the back claim that is being remanded at this time. These matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file VA treatment records from March 2020 to the present. 2. Schedule a VA examination to assess the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected spinal stenosis with degenerative disc disease L4-L5 lumbar spine, with spondylosis and dextro-scoliosis, and thoracic spondylosis, and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The examiner must make the following findings, with full supporting rationales: (a.) Test for pain on both active and passive motion, and on weight-bearing and non-weight bearing. Express the degree of functional loss in terms of degree(s) at which pain begins. If such testing cannot be performed, the examiner should explain why. (b.) If the Veteran reports flare-ups of pain (either during the examination or other times), then opine whether there is additional functional loss during flare-ups, in terms of additional range of motion lost expressed in degrees, if possible. (c.) Please opine whether the Veteran has functional loss due to pain after repeated use over time. If so, then please express the functional loss in terms of additional degrees of range of motion lost after repeated use, if it is medically possible to do so. If any requested findings are not possible without resort to mere speculation, are not feasible, or otherwise cannot be provided, then the examiner must explain why with a full supporting rationale. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Lee, Catherine 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.