Citation Nr: A21020156 Decision Date: 12/16/21 Archive Date: 12/16/21 DOCKET NO. 191016-38185 DATE: December 16, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating greater than 20 percent for the service-connected left shoulder disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from April 1987 to August 1987 and October 1988 to March 1992. A rating decision was issued under the legacy system in July 2017 and the Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement. In September 2019 the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a statement of the case (SOC). The Veteran opted the claim into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting an October 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal. Therefore, the September 2019 SOC is the decision on appeal. In July 2020, the Board denied entitlement to a rating greater than 20 percent for the Veteran's service-connected left shoulder disability. The Veteran appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) the parties agreed that the Board's decision should be vacated. In June 2021, the Court vacated the Board's decision and remanded the issue to the Board for action consistent with the JMR. The claims have been returned to the Board for appellate review. Entitlement to a rating greater than 20 percent for the service-connected left shoulder disability is remanded. The June 2017 VA examination does not comply with the requirements in Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 34-36 (2017). The examiner stated that an opinion could not be provided regarding whether the flare-ups or repeated use significantly limited the Veteran's function ability. However, the examiner did not provide an adequate rationale that explained whether the examiner considered all procurable and assembled data before stating that an opinion could not be reached. In the August 2019 VA examination regarding the Veteran's left shoulder disability, the examination does not comply with the requirements in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016). The examination does not contain passive, non-weight-bearing, and weight-bearing range of motion measurements. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine retrospective findings by an appropriate clinician. 1) The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups at the time of the June 2017 examination. The examiner should provide an estimate, if at all possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran's statements. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). 2) Estimate the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing at the time of the August 2019 examination. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mookim, Hope P. 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.