Citation Nr: 21009946 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 16-02 801 DATE: February 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine, excluding a period of temporary total evaluation, is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent prior to November 18, 2020, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, for lumbar strain with degenerative arthritis of the spine is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, for right upper extremity neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter, for left upper extremity neuropathy is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for right lower extremity radiculopathy involving the sciatic nerve is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for left lower extremity radiculopathy involving the sciatic nerve is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for right lower extremity radiculopathy involving the femoral nerve is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for left lower extremity radiculopathy involving the femoral nerve is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to October 7, 2020, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter, for cervical sebaceous cysts with tinea corpora is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 1978 to November 1982. This matter was previously before the Board in May 2020 and September 2020, at which time the above issues were remanded for additional development. There has not been substantial compliance with the remand directives and another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board notes that the issue of the propriety of a reduction of the Veteran’s tinea corporis disability was remanded in May 2020 for the issuance of a Statement of the Case. The Veteran did not perfect his appeal of this issue, and it is not before the Board. 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent prior to November 18, 2020, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, for lumbar strain with degenerative arthritis of the spine is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter, for right upper extremity neuropathy is remanded. 4. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, for left upper extremity neuropathy is remanded. 5. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for right lower extremity radiculopathy involving the sciatic nerve is remanded. 6. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for left lower extremity radiculopathy involving the sciatic nerve is remanded. 7. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for right lower extremity radiculopathy involving the femoral nerve is remanded. 8. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating prior to January 8, 2020, and in excess of 20 percent thereafter, for left lower extremity radiculopathy involving the femoral nerve is remanded. The Veteran’s November 2020 VA examinations regarding the Veteran’s lumbar and cervical spine disabilities do not comply with the requirements in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). The examiner failed to provide complete range of motion findings in both active and passive modes, as well as in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing modes. Remand is needed for new VA examinations with more thorough findings in compliance with Correia. As the examination regarding the Veteran’s lumbar and cervical spine disabilities will result in updated findings on the current severity of his neuropathy and radiculopathy disabilities, these claims must also be remanded. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). 9. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent prior to October 7, 2020, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter, for cervical sebaceous cysts with tinea corpora is remanded. The Veteran underwent multiple VA examinations during the appeal to evaluate the severity of his skin disability, which resulted in a variety of diagnoses including eczema and sebaceous cysts (September 2016), miliaria (June 2018), and tinea corpora (October 2020). The Board noted in its May 2020 remand that the June 2018 VA examiner could not conclusively state whether the Veteran’s diagnosed miliaria was a progression of his service-connected skin disability. The Board also noted that the examination report was internally inconsistent regarding the percent of affected body area. The examiner stated that 40 percent was affected with miliaria, but miliaria is not addressed in the physical exam section, which noted only dermatitis on 5 to 20 percent of the body and eczema on 5 percent. These discrepancies were not discussed by the October 2020 VA examiner. As such, remand is needed to obtain a retrospective opinion regarding the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected skin disability in light of the various diagnoses in the record. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine, lumbar strain, bilateral upper extremity neuropathy, and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy involving both the sciatic and femoral nerves. Copies of all pertinent records must be made available to the examiner for review. The examiner should provide a full description of the respective disabilities and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disabilities under the rating criteria. In so doing, the examiner must test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. 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. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement based on direct observation, the examiner should provide an estimate, if at all possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran’s statements. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without speculation, the examiner must 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). 2. Forward the claims file to the examiner who performed the October 2020 VA examination for an addendum retrospective opinion addressing the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected skin disability during the appeal period in light of the various diagnoses in the record. Specifically, the Veteran is asked to comment on whether the Veteran’s variously diagnosed skin disabilities are currently encompassed by his service-connected cervical sebaceous cysts with tinea corpora. The examiner should also clarify findings on the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected skin disability at the time of his January 2015, February 2016, September 2016 and June 2018 VA examinations. M. E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jack S. Komperda, 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.