Citation Nr: 21015449 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-13 938 DATE: March 17, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for left knee degenerative joint disease (DJD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from August 1980 to September 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO) that granted service connection for left knee DJD and assigned a 20 percent initial rating. See NOD, August 2015. In November 2018, the Board remanded the claim for further development. This matter is now returned to the Board for further appellate review. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for left knee DJD The Veteran’s left knee DJD is currently assigned a 20 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5261, effective December 2, 2013. The Veteran seeks a higher initial rating. Most recently, the claim was remanded in December 2018 so that the Veteran could be afforded a new VA examination, to include ranges of motion in both weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing, active and passive, in light of Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). Subsequently, a VA examination was scheduled for December 2019, but the Veteran failed to appear. However, records show the Veteran was incarcerated for two years until October 2019, and VA examination scheduling letters had been returned to VA as undeliverable. See, e.g., Form 27-0820e, Report of Incarceration, March 2020; see Returned mail, September 2019 and November 2019. VA treatment records indicate that after his release from incarceration, the Veteran has been a resident of a VA transitional housing program for homeless veterans. See CAPRI, received November 2019 at p.1. In fact, in January 2020, the Veteran filed a change of address form, and his address appears to be the same as a VA facility. A more recent September 2020 Intent to File form also reflects the same address. Therefore, the Board finds that good cause for his failure to report to the December 2019 VA examination has been shown due to his incarceration and subsequent homelessness, and the claim should be remanded to schedule him for another opportunity for a VA examination to address the current severity of his left knee DJD. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the Veteran with a new VA examination to address the current severity of his left knee disability.  The claims folder should be made available to the examiner and pertinent documents therein should be reviewed by the examiner.  All necessary tests and studies should be accomplished, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail.  The examination must comply with the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 involving measurements of passive and active range of motion - in both weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing.  The examiner must explain why any of these clinical tests are not appropriate or could not be performed.  A complete rationale for any opinions expressed should be provided.    If flare-ups are noted, the examiner should note whether pain during flare-ups additionally limits functional ability.  The examiner should note whether there are any additional degrees of loss of motion due to pain during flare-ups (if it is not feasible to quantify, please explain).  Also, the examiner should ask the Veteran to describe in his own words whether there is any additional functional loss during flare-ups, and the examiner should note the frequency, duration, and severity of flare-ups.    The examiner should also note whether weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, or pain significantly limits functional ability with repeated use over time.  If so, the examiner should note whether there are any additional degrees of loss of motion as a result (if it is not feasible to quantify, please explain).    Regarding both flare-ups and repeated use over time, please note to the VA examiner that if additional functional loss cannot be described in terms of degrees of limitation of motion, it should be clear that an examiner has “considered all procurable and assembled data before stating that an opinion cannot be reached,” and “that the inability to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation reflects the limitation of knowledge in the medical community at large.”  The Board may “accept a VA examiner’s statement that he or she cannot offer an opinion without resorting to speculation, but only after determining that this is not based on the absence of procurable information or on a particular examiner’s shortcomings or general aversion to offering an opinion on issues not directly observed.”  See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33 (2017).  The examiner should also address the effect of the Veteran’s left knee disability on his occupational functioning.  Ensure that the Veteran is contacted at his most recent address (note he recently filed a change of address form, and appears to be a resident of a VA transitional housing program). J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Juliano, 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.