Citation Nr: 21024521 Decision Date: 04/23/21 Archive Date: 04/23/21 DOCKET NO. 11-20 591 DATE: April 23, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for a right shin disability, prior to January 6, 2017, is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for a left shin disability, prior to January 6, 2017, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 2002 to April 2007. These claims were previously denied by the Board of Veteran Appeals (Board) in June 2018. The Veteran appealed the claim to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and in an April 2019 Joint Motion for Partial Remand, the Court vacated those portions of the June 2018 Board decision that denied entitlement to a compensable rating prior to January 6, 2017, for bilateral shin splint disabilities and remanded those issues to the Board for additional action. In September 2019 the Board remanded this case to obtain an adequate examination and retrospective opinion. Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), and Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). The January 2021 VA examiner concluded that it was not possible to provide a retrospective opinion because “the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the record,” noting that additional facts are required. The Board finds the January 2021 opinion inadequate. The examiner did not provide a sufficient rationale for finding the record so deficient that it would be impossible to form an opinion without resort to speculation. The opinion did not discuss the medical or lay evidence or indicate the additional facts required to form an opinion. When VA provide an examination or obtains an opinion, the examination or opinion must be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Therefore, the Board finds that further VA examination, to include retrospective medical opinions, is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a retrospective medical opinion from an appropriate clinician addressing the severity and manifestations of the service-connected bilateral shin disabilities from April 10, 2007, and prior to January 6, 2017. The examiner must review the claims file and should note that review in the report. The examiner should provide a full description of the bilateral shin disabilities and report all signs and symptoms necessary for rating the disabilities under the rating criteria prior to January 6, 2017. In providing the opinions, the examiner must address the Veteran’s lay reports as to symptoms, including pain and flare-ups. The examiner must attempt to describe the severity, frequency, duration, precipitating factors, and alleviating factors of any flareups, and should estimate the degree of functional loss and additional limitation of motion during such flares. The examiner must also comment on active motion, passive motion, pain and range of motion with weight-bearing, and pain and range of motion without weight-bearing. The examiner must specifically discuss whether any testing was done during that period to determine if there was pain limiting range of motion on weight bearing or nonweight-bearing conditions and if possible discuss the effects of pain on range of motion while weight bearing or non-weight bearing. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the bilateral shin disabilities alone and discuss the effect of the bilateral shin disabilities on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. The examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the shin disabilities resulted in limitation of motion or function of the knees or ankles due to pain, fatigability, incoordination, excess motion, weakened motion, or on flare ups prior to January 6, 2017, based on examination and review of the records. A complete rationale for any opinions should be provided. The Board recognizes the difficulty in making such determinations but requests that the examiner provide a best estimate based on the claims file and statements of the Veteran. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Duke, 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.