Citation Nr: 21077620
Decision Date: 12/30/21	Archive Date: 12/30/21

DOCKET NO. 09-10 868
DATE: December 30, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for medial and lateral instability, right knee, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served in the United States Navy with active duty from September 1968 to September 1972, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina.  Jurisdiction of the Veteran's claims file was subsequently transferred to the Newark, New Jersey RO. 

In September 2017, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record.  

This claim was previously before the Board in November 2020, at which time it was remanded for additional development.

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for medial and lateral instability, right knee

Pursuant to the November 2020 Board remand, an addendum opinion was obtained in November 2021 and the examiner opined on whether the Veteran's range of motion results from the April 2008, May 2011, and September 2015 VA examinations would have been reduced if tested in both active and passive motion and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing.  The examiner indicated that he was unable to determine additional range of motion loss from prior studies because he was not the physician at the time of those examinations.  

The Board acknowledges the inherent difficulty with providing such retrospective range of motion findings; however, it must be clear that this is predicated on a lack of knowledge among the 'medical community at large' and not the insufficient knowledge of the specific examiner." See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 36 (2017) (quoting Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 390 (2010)). Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination, it must obtain a fully adequate one examination.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); see also Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1, 12 (2001) (emphasizing the Board's duty to return an inadequate examination report "if further evidence or clarification of the evidence... is essential for a proper appellate decision.").  Therefore, this claim must be remanded for a new addendum opinion.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Provide the Veteran with an addendum opinion from an appropriate orthopedic specialist as to whether the Veteran's range of motion results from the April 2008, May 2011, and September 2015 VA examinations would have been reduced if tested in both active and passive motion and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing.  To the examiner's best ability, the additional range of motion loss should be described and estimated in degrees. 

If the examiner is unable to provide the requested opinion in this case, he or she should clearly explain the basis for this decision.  However, it must be clear that this is predicated on a lack of knowledge among the 'medical community at large' and not the insufficient knowledge of him or her specifically.

 

 

Michael J. Skaltsounis

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Daniels, 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.