Citation Nr: 21007168 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-39 719 DATE: February 8, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected left knee Osgood-Schlatter’s disease with degenerative arthritis is remanded. The issue of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected right knee Osgood-Schlatter’s disease with degenerative arthritis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 1951 to December 1955. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2020, at which time it was remanded for additional development. For the reasons outlined below, remand is again needed. 1. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected left knee Osgood-Schlatter’s disease with degenerative arthritis 2. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent disabling for service-connected right knee Osgood-Schlatter’s disease with degenerative arthritis. The Board finds that additional development is needed prior to final adjudication of the issues on appeal. Specifically, the Board finds that a new VA examination is needed. In the prior remand, the Board directed that “For all ranges and planes of motion where pain is noted, the exact point at which pain start[s] must be clearly noted.” (Emphasis in the original). However, the November 2020 VA examination report does not note at which degree pain begins in terms of range of motion. For example, in the initial range of motion measurement testing, pain is noted in both knees in flexion and extension, but it is unclear where this pain begins in terms of degrees. Accordingly, a new VA examination is needed. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). In addition, the November 2020 examination report notes objective evidence of pain on passive range of motion testing, as well as with weight-bearing. However, the examiner did not express these findings in terms of degrees of range of motion. Again, remand is needed to obtain these measurements. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. After securing any necessary consent forms from the Veteran, obtain any outstanding treatment records, to include any VA and/or private treatment records, pertaining to the issues on appeal. All efforts should be documented in the claim file. If any records could not be obtained, this should be noted in the claim file. 2. Upon completion of the above, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to evaluate the current level of severity of his knee disabilities. The claim folder and all pertinent treatment records should be made available to the examiner for review, and review of such records should be noted in any subsequent report. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. The examiner is asked specifically to provide range of motion testing (ROM) for both knees for active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing. Full ROM testing also must be conducted on the opposite joint unless the opposite joint is damaged, which includes any disorder that would make the joint in question abnormal. If the opposite joint is determined to be damaged, and no ROM on testing is conducted, this must be explained in the report. In addition, for both knees the examiner must discuss pain for ROM movements on active, passive, and repetitive use testing. The examiner is asked to address the following questions: (a) Are any ROM movements painful on active, passive, and repetitive use testing? If yes, identify whether active, passive, and repetitive use. (b) If yes (there are painful movements), does the pain contribute to functional loss or additional limitation of ROM? Please further describe the functional loss or additional limitation of ROM. (c) If no (the pain does not contribute to functional loss or additional limitation of ROM), explain why the pain does not contribute. In addition, for both knees the examiner must discuss pain when used in weight-bearing or in nonweight-bearing. The examiner is asked to address the following questions: (a) Is there pain when the joint is used in weight-bearing or nonweight-bearing? If yes, identify whether weight-bearing or nonweight-bearing. (b) If yes (there is pain when used in weight-bearing or nonweight-bearing), does the pain contribute to functional loss or additional limitation of ROM? Please further describe these limitations. (c) If no (the pain does not contribute to functional loss or additional limitation of ROM), explain why the pain does not contribute. For all ranges and planes of motion where pain is noted, the exact point at which pain starts must be clearly noted. The examiner must also attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups, as expressed in range of motion. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the knee disabilities and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s knee disabilities on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. The examiner should state whether or not there is any neurologic disability, to include of the lower extremities, that is the result of the knee disabilities.   3. If upon completion of the above action the issues are denied, the case should be returned to the Board after compliance with appellate procedures. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Foster, 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.