Citation Nr: 21011209 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 18-55 114 DATE: March 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative disc disease with spinal stenosis, lumbar spine, s/p laminectomy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the Army from June to August 1989. The appeal originates from a February 2017 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative disc disease with spinal stenosis, lumbar spine, s/p laminectomy is remanded. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2016. Since the examination, however, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has found that examinations of musculoskeletal disabilities must comply with the language of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). As a result, examinations must test range of motion in both active and passive motion, and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. The examination does not comply with Correia because it satisfies some but not all of the noted requirements.   In addition, clarification is necessary regarding flareups as the Veteran reported having worsening flareups in May 2017 and April 2019 statements. See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). Accordingly, he should be afforded a new examination. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination to evaluate the current nature and severity of his lumbar spine disability. The examiner must perform appropriate range of motion testing, expressing all findings in degrees and noting the degree where painful motion, if any, is present. Further, note the presence, or absence, of weakened movement, excess fatigability, and incoordination present, to include on repetitive testing. This information must be derived from joint testing for pain on active and passive motion, and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. The examination report must confirm that all such testing has been made and reflect those testing results. The examiner is asked to describe whether pain significantly limits functional ability during flareups, and if so, the examiner must estimate range of motion during flareups, to include a retrospective opinion for the period on appeal. If the examination does not take place during a period of flareup, the examiner should glean information regarding the flareups’ severity, frequency, duration, and functional loss manifestations from the Veteran, medical records, and other available sources. Efforts to obtain such information must be documented. If there is no pain and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report.   The medical reasons for the opinions provided should be set forth in detail. If the examiner feels that the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, such should be stated with supporting rationale. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Alhinnawi 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.