Citation Nr: 21007880 Decision Date: 02/11/21 Archive Date: 02/11/21 DOCKET NO. 15-27 547A DATE: February 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for right knee degenerative joint disease (DJD) is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee DJD is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1975 to January 2002. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This case was remanded in August 2018 for further development; it has since been re-assigned to the undersigned. 1. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for right knee DJD is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee DJD is remanded. In its August 2018 remand, the Board instructed the RO to schedule the Veteran for a new examination to determine the current severity of her right and left knee disabilities. It appears a VA examination was scheduled, but that the Veteran failed to appear; however, the Board is unclear whether the Veteran received notice of the examination as a copy of the scheduling letter is not of record. The Board notes the last examination was in 2017 and certain case law has rendered the prior knee examinations inadequate. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016); Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 34-36 (2017). Given the notice issue, the RO must also attempt to once again develop this claim. Consequently, another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Pursuant to the Board’s remand, the RO requested that the Veteran return a VA Form 21-4142, Authorization to Disclose Information to the VA, and Form 21-4142a, General Release for Medical Provider Information to the VA. See February 2019 correspondence to the Veteran. To date, the Veteran has not responded to this request. As this claim is being remanded again, she will have another opportunity to assist in the development of her claim. She is reminded that in pursuing a claim, a claimant has a responsibility to cooperate in developing all facts pertinent to the claim; that is to say, VA’s duty to assist is not a one-way street. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). If the Veteran wishes help in developing her claim, she cannot passively wait for it in circumstances where she may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence.  Id.  The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain, if possible, records of relevant private evaluations and treatment the Veteran has received. The Veteran must assist in the matter by identifying her private healthcare providers and by submitting releases for VA to obtain any private records identified. 2. The AOJ should obtain copies of VA treatment records from January 2020 to the present. 3. The Veteran should be notified that the Board has requested additional development, to include the scheduling of a VA examination. Copies of all notification letters should be associated with the claim file. 4. After the above development is completed, arrange for an orthopedic examination of the Veteran (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible) to assess the current severity of her service-connected right and left knee disabilities. The examiner must review the entire record in conjunction with the examination and note such review was conducted. Pathology, symptoms (frequency and severity), and any associated impairment of function should be described in detail. All indicated tests or studies should be completed. (a) Range of motion measurements should be included for active and passive motion in both weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing circumstances, including for the opposite undamaged joint, if applicable. If pain is noted, the point in the range of motion at which pain starts should be clearly noted. (b)The examiner should address whether the Veteran has patellar instability (a diagnosed condition involving the patellofemoral complex) and, if so, whether the Veteran requires a prescription by a medical provider for a brace, cane, and/or walker. (c) The examiner should address whether the Veteran has recurrent subluxation or instability consisting of either a sprain or ligament tear that causes persistent instability, and whether the Veteran requires the use of an assistive device or bracing for ambulation. If the Veteran has a ligament tear, identify whether it is incomplete, or complete (to include repaired, unrepaired, or failed repair). (d) If feasible, the examiner must assess the additional functional impairment on repeated use or during flare-ups in terms of the degree of additional range of motion loss, using lay observations specifically elicited from the Veteran. If not feasible, the examiner must provide a detailed explanation and rationale for why such could not be accomplished. Specifically, if the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she must provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered; a rationale based on the fact that the Veteran is not having a flare-up at the time of the examination will not be deemed adequate. In answering the foregoing, the examiner’s attention is directed to the following VA treatment records: • January 2015: evaluation and measurement for bilateral knee sleeves to help with medial/lateral instability. • March 2015: Veteran denied locking or buckling but complained of stiffness and patella grinding with retropatellar pain. • August 2015: Veteran denied locking or buckling; patellofemoral crepitus and grinding noted; Veteran measured for knee brace to help with medial/lateral instability. • January 2016: no patellar TTP, no ligamental laxity with valgus/varus stress. No locking of knee noted. 5. If upon completion of the above action the issues remain 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 T. Matta, 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.