Citation Nr: 21025282 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 13-18 780A DATE: April 27, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 30 percent for temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1975 to March 1995. The Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge in October 2016. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. In March 2021, the Board notified the Veteran that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the October 2016 hearing was no longer employed at the Board, and that he was entitled to another hearing before another Veterans Law Judge if he so desired. 38 C.F.R. § 20.717. There was no response received within the required 30-day time limit and the Veteran has not otherwise requested a new hearing. Accordingly, the Veteran is deemed to have waived his right to another hearing before the Board. Entitlement to an increased rating greater than 30 percent for left temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ) is remanded. The Board regrets the delay of an additional remand, but review of the record suggests that a new VA examination is warranted to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s TMJ. The Veteran last underwent a VA examination to determine the severity of his TMJ disability in January 2020. However, in August 2020, the Veteran reported that his TMJ symptoms had worsened, and requested TMJ treatment through VA. Although VA opinions addressing the severity of the Veteran’s TMJ since his claim was filed were obtained in August 2020, November 2020, and December 2020, those opinions were not based upon contemporaneous examination of the Veteran. Thus, he has not been physically examined to determine the severity of his TMJ since January 2020. As the evidence of record suggests that the Veteran’s TMJ may have worsened in severity since his last VA examination in January 2020, remand for a new VA examination is warranted. Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174 (2007); Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 281, 284 (1993); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his TMJ disability. The claims file should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner and all necessary tests should be performed. All findings should be reported in detail. The examiner should conduct all indicated tests and studies, to include range of motion studies. The joints involved should be tested in both active and passive motion and in weight-bearing and non weight-bearing, and the range of motion of each must be reported. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. If there is pain during range of motion testing, the examiner should state the point at which pain begins. The examiner should describe any pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, instability of station and incoordination present. Any dietary restrictions due to TMJ should be documented in the examination report. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner should also state whether the examination is taking place during a period of flare-up. If not, the examiner should ask the Veteran to describe the flare-ups he experiences, including: frequency, duration, characteristics, precipitating and alleviating factors, severity and/or extent of functional impairment he experiences during a flare-up of symptoms and/or after repeated use over time. Based on the Veteran’s lay statements and the other evidence of record, the examiner should provide an opinion estimating any additional degree of limited motion caused by functional loss during a flare-up or after repeated use over time. If the examiner cannot estimate the degrees of additional range of motion loss during flare-ups or after repetitive use without resorting to speculation, the examiner should state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (i.e. no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner (i.e. additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training). ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Katz, 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.