Citation Nr: 21011856 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 08-32 828 DATE: March 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for osteoarthritis of right knee is remanded. Entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from November 1999 to November 2002 and from May 2003 to August 2005. In September 202, the Board most recently remanded the issues below on appeal for further development, and the case has since been returned to the Board. The Board finds that the AOJ has substantially complied with the remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11Vet. App.268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for osteoarthritis of right knee is remanded. In a November 2020 statement, the Veteran asserted that his right knee disablity increased in severity since the Veteran was last examined by VA. The Veteran should be provided an opportunity to report for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his right knee disablity. Entitlement to TDIU is remanded. Relevant to the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU, the Board finds such is inextricably intertwined with the Veteran’s increased rating claim remanded herein, as the outcome of such could possibly have bearing on the Veteran’s claim fora TDIU. See Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23Vet. App.166, 177(2009) (en banc) (explaining that claims are inextricably intertwined where the adjudication of one claim could have a significant impact on the adjudication of another claim); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App.180, 183 (1991). 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 right knee disability. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. (a.) In so doing, the examiner MUST test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. 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). (b.) Further, the examiner MUST 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. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including the inextricably intertwined issue of TDIU. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. A. Elliott II, 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.