Citation Nr: 21006904 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 06-34 428 DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the right knee from December 23, 2005 is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the left knee from December 23, 2005 is remanded. Entitlement to total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the right knee is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the left knee is remanded. The Veteran served in the United States Army from February 1971 until his honorable discharge in February 1973. These matters are before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision issued in April 2006 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Jackson, Mississippi. The appeal involves a long procedural history and for the purpose of brevity the Board will discuss the most recent remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). A September 2020 Order by the Court adopted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties. The parties agreed that, in the December 2019 Board Decision, the Board should not have relied on several inadequate VA examinations in January 2006, October 2010, June 2015, August 2016, November 2016, and April 2019. The parties explained that the VA examinations were inadequate because they did not offer opinions as to functional impairment during flareups in both knees. See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33-36 (2017) (explaining that before an examiner can conclude that an opinion on functional loss cannot be provided without  resorting to speculation, the examiner must elicit and consider information from the veteran or other sources about any additional functional loss experienced during a period of flare-ups and provide either an estimate of additional range-of-motion loss in degrees or an explanation for why such an estimate cannot be given). The parties also requested that the claim for TDIU be remanded as it is inextricably intertwined with the knee rating claims. As the January 2006, October 2010, June 2015, August 2016, November 2016, and April 2019 VA examinations do not fully address functional impairment during flareups, a remand is warranted to obtain VA examination addendum opinions to help assess any additional limitation of motion or functional loss during flare-ups.  3. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. The outcome of the claim for TDIU could be affected by the results of development ordered on remand; therefore, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU is should be deferred pending the proposed development. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (the adjudication of claims that are inextricably intertwined is based upon the recognition that claims related to each other should not be subject to piecemeal decision-making or appellate litigation). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Send January 2006, October 2010, June 2015, August 2016, November 2016, and April 2019 VA examination reports to a VA examiner for addendum opinions. Examination of the Veteran is not required unless the examiner determines that an examination is necessary to provide a reliable opinion. If an examination is required, a detailed history of relevant symptoms should be obtained from the Veteran. A rationale for all opinions and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved should be provided. The VA examiner should provide six addendum opinions – one for each of the above-listed VA examinations. Each addendum opinion should be provided as follows:  After reviewing the relevant evidence of record including reports of flare-ups, the VA examiner should estimate the functional loss in the thoracolumbar spine, to include additional loss of range of motion, due to (during) flare ups.  If the VA examiner is unable to render such an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, the VA examiner should explain whether this inability is predicated on a lack of knowledge of the medical community at large or the examiner’s own insufficient knowledge.  (Continued on the next page)   In rendering the above opinion, the VA examiner is to assume that the Veteran has some functional loss during a flare-up, with the remaining question as to the extent of the functional limitation and limitation of motion during the flare-ups. The VA examiner quantify the functional loss, to include loss of range of motion, even if such functional loss is minimal in severity. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Costantino, Associate 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.