Citation Nr: 21023894 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-48 450 DATE: April 21, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for limitation of motion of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to a rating greater than 20 percent for left knee instability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1969 to November1969. In a July 2019 decision, the Board denied an increased rating for instability of the Veteran’s left knee and granted a separate 10 percent rating for limitation of motion of his left knee. The Veteran subsequently appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an October 2020 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), which vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the Veteran’s appeal to the Board for action consistent with the terms of the JMPR. In July 2019, the Board also remanded claims f service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability and for hepatitis. The development on those claims has not been completed and the claims have not been returned to the Board. 1. Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for limitation of motion of the left knee is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating greater than 20 percent for left knee instability is remanded. The claims are remanded to obtain a new examination. The parties to the JMR agreed that the December 2018 VA examination was inadequate because it did not adequately address the effect of pain and flare-ups on range of motion. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 20 (1995); Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for the appropriate VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected left knee disability. Copies of all pertinent medical records should be made available to the examiner for review. All necessary diagnostic testing should be performed using the appropriate DBQ if available. The examiner must make determinations regarding range of motion, including any additional functional impairment. It is imperative that the examiner comment on the functional limitations caused by pain and any other associated symptoms, to include the frequency and severity of flare-ups of these symptoms, and the effect of pain on range of motion caused by flare-ups of the Veteran’s respective disabilities. Such comments should include whether there was additional limitation of motion following repetitive testing due to pain, weakness, fatigability, etc. Any determination concerning this functional loss should be expressed in degrees of additional range of motion loss. The examination must address active and passive motion, weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing information, or why such testing is not necessary. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions, citing to supporting factual data and medical literature, as appropriate. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to 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) and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. G. Perkins, 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.