Citation Nr: 21012284 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 12-20 560 DATE: March 4, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for right epicondylitis with limitation of flexion is remanded. Entitlement to an evaluation higher than 10 percent for right elbow impairment of supination and/or pronation is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for right elbow limitation of extension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1988 to May 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2006 rating decision of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia that denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for right elbow epicondylitis. This appeal was most recently before the Board in August 2019, at which time it was remanded for further evidentiary development. Specifically, the Board found that another VA examination was required to accurately assess the severity of the Veteran’s right elbow disability. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2019. Since that time, the Veteran and his representative have submitted lay evidence in the form of written correspondence that his right elbow disability has worsened in severity since his last examination. As such, remand is required to afford the Veteran a contemporaneous examination to ascertain the current severity of his disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Associate with the claims folder updated VA and private treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected right elbow 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. 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). 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. The examiner should have the Veteran describe and/or demonstrate the extent of motion loss during flares or repetitive use and provide the extent of motion loss described in terms of degrees. The examiner should discuss whether there is any medical reason to accept or reject the lay descriptions of functional impairment on repetitive use or during flares. 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). T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Orie, 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.