Citation Nr: 21007879 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 14-20 201A DATE: February 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee strain is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1972 to August 1973. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) remanded this matter in December 2016 for further evidentiary development. The case has returned to the Board for appellate review. The Board notes that the Veteran has an appeal pending pursuant to the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), which addresses entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). As the Veteran’s AMA appeal follows separate procedural guidelines in addition to the application of regulations specific to the adjudication of AMA claims, a separate decision will be promulgated addressing that claim. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee strain is remanded. The Veteran is seeking entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee strain disability. The Veteran contends that the rating does not adequately reflect the severity of his right knee disability. While the Board regrets additional delay, further development is required before the Board may address this issue on the merits. Review of the record reveals that since the last supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) for this issue in September 2017, a significant number of records have been added to the record, many pertinent to the issue herein. Initial Agency of Jurisdiction (AOJ) review of that evidence has not been undertaken. Further review of the record reveals that a remand is required in order to provide the Veteran with a new VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his right knee disability. To that end, the Board notes that the Veteran’s most recent and pertinent VA examination for his right knee took place in July 2017. The Veteran’s representative has asserted that this examination is inadequate for rating purposes. Medical evidence added to the Veteran’s claims file since that time suggests that his right knee disability may have worsened and be more severe than previously evaluated. Given the above, the Board finds the previous examination inadequate for rating purposes at this time. See Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991) (VA has a duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous examination of the Veteran in an increased rating claim); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991); see also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997). Therefore, a contemporaneous VA examination is warranted. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain copies of all pertinent, outstanding records from the VA Medical Center and its associated clinics where the Veteran receives treatment. If any pertinent private treatment has been rendered, the Veteran’s assistance in obtaining these records should be requested as needed. All attempts to obtain records should be documented in the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the severity of the right knee disability during the entire period on appeal, to the extent possible. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated tests and studies must be accomplished, and all clinical findings must be reported in detail and correlated to a specific diagnosis. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. The relevant Disability Benefits Questionnaire must be utilized. The examiner must describe any functional limitation due to pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, pain with use, or incoordination. Additional limitation of motion during flare-ups and following repetitive use due to limited motion, excess motion, fatigability, weakened motion, incoordination, or painful motion must also be noted. If the Veteran describes flare-ups of pain, the examiner must offer an opinion as to whether there would be additional limits on functional ability during flare-ups. All losses of function due to problems such as pain should be equated to additional degrees of limitation of flexion and extension beyond that shown clinically. Review of the prior examinations and entry of these findings retrospectively, to the extent possible, is also requested. If it is not possible to make such findings based on the evidence of record for those time periods, the medical rationale for that conclusion should be set out. Should the examiner state that he or she is unable to offer such an opinion without resorting to speculation based on the fact that the examination was not performed during a flare-up, the examiner is directed to do all that reasonably can be done to become informed before such a conclusion, to include ascertaining adequate information-i.e. frequency, duration, characteristics, severity, or functional loss-regarding his flares by alternative means. It is vital that all sources of information, including the Veteran's own statements, be used in describing the above. The examiner must also indicate the point during range of motion testing that motion is limited by pain. Specifically, the examiner should provide the degree at which during range of motion testing the Veteran experiences pain. The examiner must provide estimates of the range of motion and pain of the right knee in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and non-weight-bearing.   3. Thereafter, the AOJ should readjudicate the claim, giving consideration to all evidence added to the file since the September 2017 SSOC. Then return the case to the Board, if in order. MICHAEL D. LYON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Frazier, Associate Attorney 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.