Citation Nr: 21005259 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 15-40 558 DATE: February 1, 2021 REMANDED An initial compensable rating for a low back disability, characterized as degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome, is remanded. A rating in excess of 10 percent for a right ankle disability, characterized as fracture residuals, is remanded. A rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder, characterized as cervical strain, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right elbow disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy, to include as secondary to a neck disorder, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1991 to May 1998, and from October 2007 to November 2008. The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans’ Law Judge in March 2019. A transcript of the hearing is of record. 1. An initial compensable rating for a low back disability, characterized as degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome, is remanded. 2. A rating in excess of 10 percent for a right ankle disability, characterized as fracture residuals, is remanded. 3. A rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disorder, characterized as cervical strain, is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a right elbow disorder is remanded. 6. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy, to include as secondary to a neck disorder, is remanded. The Veteran has submitted claims for higher ratings for his service-connected low back disability, right ankle disability, and right lower extremity radiculopathy. Additionally, he has submitted claims for service connection for neck, right elbow, and right upper extremity disabilities. Specifically, he has claimed that his low back and right ankle disabilities have worsened, and that in-service injuries contributed to the development of his neck and right elbow disabilities. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran testified that his service-connected low back and right ankle disabilities have worsened since the last time he was afforded a VA examination in April 2014. As such, he should be afforded new examinations to evaluate the severity of these disabilities. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). Additionally, the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy is, by its nature, inextricably intertwined with his low back disability and is thus also to be remanded for a new evaluation. Turning to the Veteran’s service connection claims, the Veteran has claimed that he was injured in service. He specifically stated that he injured his neck in 1997 when moving while wearing a Kevlar helmet, and that he injured his elbow after a fall. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in April 2014 in order to evaluate his claimed disorders relationship to his service in Southwest Asia. The examiner did not provide an opinion regarding direct service connection, and did not address the Veteran’s contentions regarding his in-service injuries. Accordingly, remands are necessary for the Veteran’s claims for service connection for neck and elbow disorders so that examinations can be obtained to address direct service connection. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) (West 2002); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Additionally, the Veteran’s right upper extremity radiculopathy is, by its nature, inextricably intertwined with his neck disability and is thus also to be remanded for a new examination. In accordance with the above discussion, the Board cannot fully address the claims on appeal until additional development is completed. The Veteran’s claims for increased ratings for his low back, ankle, right lower radiculopathy disabilities, and service connection claims for his neck, right elbow, and right upper radiculopathy disorders are remanded. 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. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Regional Office (RO) should invite the Veteran to submit any additional evidence in support of his claim. The RO should obtain any additional treatment records from any VA facility at which the Veteran has received treatment at since April 2019. 2. Schedule the Veteran for new VA examinations to determine the current severity of his low back, right ankle, and right lower radiculopathy disabilities. The claims folder must be made available to and be reviewed by any examiner(s). All tests deemed necessary should be conducted and the results reported in detail. The full range of motion testing must be performed in both active and passive motion, in weightbearing and non-weightbearing with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. If the examiner(s) is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, they should clearly explain why that is so. The examiner(s) should address in detail the additional functional impairment and range of motion loss due to factors such as pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and flare-ups for each disability. The examiner(s) should estimate any additional loss of motion to the best of their ability. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner(s) should 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). All opinions should be accompanied by adequate reasons and bases. If the examiner(s) cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to mere speculation, they should provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner(s) should explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that they have exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). 3. Schedule the Veteran for new examinations, with an appropriate clinician, to determine the nature, extent, onset, and etiology of his neck, right elbow, and right upper extremity radiculopathy disorders. The complete claims file should be made available to the examiner(s). The examiner(s) should provide opinions as to whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that his neck disorder, right elbow disorder, and right upper extremity radiculopathy are etiologically related to the Veteran’s period of service, or to another diagnosed disorder. All opinions should be accompanied by adequate reasons and bases. If the examiner(s) cannot provide the requested opinion without resorting to mere speculation, they should provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner(s) should explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that they have exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Q. Hernan, Associate Counsel