Citation Nr: 21010622 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 15-03 083 DATE: February 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for left humerus fracture, status post open reduction/internal fixation with scar (hereinafter left shoulder disability) is remanded. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral plantar fasciitis prior to September 23, 2019, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1988 to July 2011. When this case was most recently before the Board in August 2019, the above-noted issues were remanded for further development. The case has since been returned for additional appellate review. REASONS FOR REMAND While additional delay of the above-noted claim is untenable, the Board finds further development is required before the Veteran’s claims are decided. In the course of the August 2019 remand, the Board fully explained that an assessment of the Veteran’s flare-ups, as well as range of motion measurements in weight bearing, non-weight bearing, and in passive motion were necessary to properly evaluate the Veteran’s bilateral foot and left shoulder disabilities. See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017); see also Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). The Veteran recently underwent VA examinations; however, like the prior examinations, the October 2019 and December 2019 foot examiners, as well as the December 2019 shoulder examiner, failed to provide these critical evaluative criteria. As such, a remand is again required. A remand by the Board confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Further, as also previously noted in the August 2019 remand, the RO has attempted to obtain an administrative decision from the Director of Compensation Service addressing the Veteran’s entitlement to an extra-schedular disability rating for her bilateral foot disability. However, by way of correspondence in August and November 2019 the Director of Compensation Service determined a decision was premature as examinations of the Veteran’s bilateral foot disability were pending. To date, the RO has not obtained the requested administrative decision. Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Afford the Veteran a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise, who has not previously examined the Veteran, to fully assess the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral foot and left shoulder disabilities. All pertinent evidence of record should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Ensure the examiner provides all information required for rating purposes, to specifically include both active and passive range of motion testing, as well as weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing range of motion assessments. In addition, the examiner must consider and discuss all procurable and assembled data such as the frequency, duration, characteristics, precipitating and alleviating factors, and the severity of the flare-ups, and then provide an assessment of the functional loss during flares, if possible in degrees of motion lost. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes any required testing is not necessary, he or she should be directed to clearly explain why that is so. 2. Following the above-noted VA foot conditions examination, this matter should be referred to the Director of Compensation Service for extra-schedular consideration under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (b)(1). The referral should be accompanied by a full statement as to the Veteran’s employment interferences and functional impairments caused by her service-connected bilateral foot disability. The Director of Compensation Service should provide a complete rationale for any determination rendered. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Fraser, 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.