Citation Nr: 21076594 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 08-11 588 DATE: December 27, 2021 REMANDED A rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability. A rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability. An extraschedular rating for a right knee disability. An extraschedular rating for a left knee disability. A total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1972 to April 1974. The case is on appeal from a November 2006 rating decision. The Veteran testified at Board hearings in November 2010 and December 2020. Most recently, in an April 2021 decision, the Board remanded the case for further development. 1. A rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability. 2. A rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability. 3. An extraschedular rating for a right knee disability. 4. An extraschedular rating for a left knee disability. In April 2021, the Board directed that the Veteran's claims file be forwarded to an examiner to assess the nature and severity of the Veteran's bilateral knee disorders, including a retrospective opinion. Specifically, the examiner was requested to estimate the amount in degrees of range of motion lost due to flare-ups experienced by the Veteran at the time of the prior VA examinations conducted in July 2006, March 2011, March 2014, and January 2016. The Veteran was afforded an April 2021 VA examination in which the examiner took note of the prior examination results, to include from July 2006, March 2011, March 2014 and January 2016. However, the examiner stated she was "unable to speculate on the effects of flares of the veterans knee conditions as on each exam of the dates requested, the occurrence of flare ups are not indicated." Thereafter, a November 2021 brief in support was submitted in which the Veteran's representative indicated the April 2021 VA opinion did not provide an adequate retrospective opinion and simply restated the prior findings. Additionally, the Board notes in the July 2006 VA examination, the Veteran did report flare-ups in his knees. Moreover, he reported flares in both knees, including sharp pain rated at 9 out of 10, which lasts for 5 to 10 minutes. While the Veteran was afforded an April 2021 VA examination and opinion following the Board remand, the examiner did not provide an adequate retrospective opinion as to the amount in degrees of range of motion lost due to flare-ups experienced by the Veteran at the time of the prior VA examinations noted. Thus, the Board finds a remand is necessary in order to ensure compliance with the prior remand orders by obtaining another VA opinion, including a retrospective opinion addressing such matters. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 5. A TDIU. The issue of a TDIU is intertwined with the pending increased rating claims and must also be remanded. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the claims file to an appropriate VA examiner to assess the severity of the Veteran's service-connected bilateral knee disorders. Following a review of the record, the examiner should provide a retrospective opinion which estimates the amount in degrees of range of motion lost due to flare-ups experienced by the Veteran at the time of the examinations conducted in July 2006, March 2011, March 2014, and January 2016. The opinion should include consideration of the evidence, to include the Veteran's lay statements and the hearing testimony presented at the November 2010 and December 2020 hearings. If the examiner cannot provide some or all of such retrospective opinion, the examiner must make clear that he or she has considered all relevant, procurable data, but that any member of the medical community at large could not provide such an opinion without resorting to speculation. A complete rationale for the opinion must be provided. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Isaacs, Brandon 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.