Citation Nr: 21021307 Decision Date: 04/12/21 Archive Date: 04/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-19 802 DATE: April 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating exceeding 40 percent for service-connected left carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating exceeding 10 percent for service-connected fibrous union, left wrist, status post fracture scaphoid and bone graft with degenerative changes (“left wrist disability”) is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on and attendance and/or housebound status is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Army March 1983 to March 1986. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California. The Board notes that the Veteran was scheduled for a live videoconference hearing in October 2019. However, the Veteran was deemed a no-show, and to date, the Veteran has not requested that a hearing be rescheduled. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran’s hearing request is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704. 1. Entitlement to an increased rating exceeding 40 percent for service-connected left CTS is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating exceeding 10 percent for service-connected left wrist disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that his left CTS and left wrist disability are both so bad that they warrant higher evaluations. After review of the record, the Board finds that further development of the medical evidence is needed prior to adjudication of the claims, and in accordance with VA’s duty to assist. The Board notes that the Veteran’s last examinations to assess the severity of his left CTS and left wrist disability was in February 2016, more than 5 years ago. While the Board is not required to direct a new examination simply due to the passage of time, a new examination is appropriate when the claimant asserts that the disability in question has undergone an increase in severity since the time of the last examination. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); see also Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185, 191 (1995) (VA must provide a new examination where a veteran claims the disability is worse than when originally rated and the available evidence is too old to adequately evaluate the current severity). Here, the Veteran has stated that his conditions are so bad that they continue to worsen on a daily basis. See Form 9, May 2016. Therefore, the Board finds a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran new VA examinations that adequately assesses the current severity of the Veteran’s left CTS and left wrist disability prior to adjudication of the claims. Additionally, with respect to the Veteran’s left wrist disability, the Board notes that the February 2016 VA examination is inadequate for adjudicative purposes, as it fails to comply with the requirements for evaluation of disabilities of the musculoskeletal system as expressed in Correia v. Mcdonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) and Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 34-36 (2017). As such, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to provide the Veteran an adequate VA examination, pursuant to VA’s duty to assist. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311-12 (2007) (holding that once VA determines that an examination is necessary, it is compelled to ensure its adequacy). 3. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on and attendance and/or housebound status is remanded. The Board notes that as development of the Veteran’s disability claims before the Board may have an impact on the Veteran’s SMC claim, the Board finds these issues to be inextricably intertwined. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). Accordingly, the Board will defer adjudication of the inextricably intertwined SMC claim at this time. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran to identify all medical providers (VA and private) from whom he has received treatment for his left CTS and left wrist disability, and obtain any outstanding records and associate them with the Veteran’s claims file. 2. After associating all newly acquired records with the claims file, schedule the Veteran for VA examinations by appropriate clinicians to determine the current severity of his left CTS and left wrist disability. The claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner in conjunction with the examination, and the examiner should note review of the record in the examination report. All pertinent medical complaints, symptoms, and clinical findings must be reported in detail. 3. Following complete review of the record, with respect to the Veteran’s left wrist disability, the examiner must complete the following: (a) Test the Veteran’s active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing, and if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. The examiner should report (in degrees) the point at which pain is objectively recorded. (b) The examiner must also attempt to elicit information, based on all the evidence of record, regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups. (c) To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the Veteran’s left wrist disability, and report or estimate functional loss in terms of the degree of additional loss of range of motion. If the examiner cannot express functional loss in this manner without resorting to speculation, he/she must explain the basis for his/her conclusion that a non-speculative opinion cannot be offered. The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any opinion given. DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Hodges, Associate 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.