Citation Nr: 21023457 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 10-08 739 DATE: April 20, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability based on limitation of flexion or extension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1983 to May 1986. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2009 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2016, the Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge and a transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. The Veterans Law Judge who conducted the hearing is no longer employed by the Board and is not available to participate in this decision. In a July 2018 letter, the Veteran was informed of this fact and informed of his right to a hearing before a different Veterans Law Judge. No response was received. Therefore, the Board may proceed with the adjudication of the appeal. In an October 2018 decision, the Board denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability based on limitation of flexion or extension. The Veteran appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a July 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated the Board’s decision denying a disability rating higher than 10 percent the limitation of motion in the left knee and remanded the matter for readjudication consistent with the decision. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability based on limitation of flexion or extension is remanded. In the July 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court noted that a June 2018 VA examination report appeared to have inconsistencies that were not addressed by the Board. Specifically, the VA examiner found there was no functional loss due to pain on movement in the left knee, but also listed numerous left knee functional limitations that appeared related to pain on movement such as “bending, squatting, lifting, pushing, running, jumping, prolonged walking, prolonged sitting, and climbing.” As a result of the inconsistency in the examination report, the Board finds that a remand is needed for a VA examination and retrospective medical opinion fully addressing whether the Veteran has functional loss due to pain on movement of the left knee. VA treatment records of record indicate the Veteran has received treatment at VA for his left knee disability. Any VA treatment records are within VA’s constructive possession, and are considered potentially relevant to the issue on appeal. On remand, the records should be obtained. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from February 2018 to the present. 2. Thereafter, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected left knee disability based on limitation of motion. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating. To the extent possible, the VA examiner should also provide a retrospective opinion that clearly articulates whether pain, weakness, and/or fatigability of the left knee disability with limitation of flexion or extension significantly limited functional ability during flare-ups or with repetitive use at the time during the appeal period. The VA 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, as well as provide an estimated flare-up opinion. 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). Nathaniel Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Marenna, 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.