Citation Nr: 21021588 Decision Date: 04/13/21 Archive Date: 04/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-10 197 DATE: April 13, 2021 REMANDED A rating higher than 10 percent for right hip strain due to limitation of extension is remanded. A rating higher than 10 percent for left hip strain due to limitation of extension is remanded. A compensable rating for right hip strain due to limitation of flexion is remanded. A compensable rating for left hip strain due to limitation of flexion is remanded. Total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably on active duty from April 1983 to July 1983. In February 2020, the Veteran and her husband testified before the undersigned Veterans’ Law Judge. A copy of the transcript is included in the record. In April 2020, the Board remanded this matter for further development. Right and Left Hips In October 2020, after remand, the Veteran attended a VA examination. However, the examiner was unable to perform range of motion testing due to pain. The examination is inadequate and a remand is necessary to obtain an adequate examination. TDIU At her February 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that she retired from her last employment due to pain from her hip disabilities. The Board finds this to raise a claim for TDIU as part of the Veteran’s increased rating claim. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Because a decision on the remanded issues of a higher rating for left and right hip strains could significantly impact a decision on the issue of TDIU, the issues are inextricably intertwined. A remand of the claims for TDIU is required. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of her service-connected hip disabilities. 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). In so doing, 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 her 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. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, 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.