Citation Nr: 21028702 Decision Date: 05/11/21 Archive Date: 05/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-27 805 DATE: May 11, 2021 ORDER As of May 1, 2017, a rating in excess of 60 percent for the Veteran's right knee total arthroplasty is denied. Prior to May 1, 2017, a rating in excess of 10 percent for limitation of extension of the right knee is denied. Prior to May 1, 2017, a separate 30 percent rating, but no higher, for limitation of flexion of the right knee is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of monetary benefits. Prior to May 1, 2017, a separate 20 percent rating, but no higher, for a meniscus disability of the right knee is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of monetary benefits. Prior to May 1, 2017, a rating in excess of 30 percent for instability of the right knee is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran underwent total right knee replacement surgery on May 1, 2017, for which he was in receipt of a 100 percent evaluation through June 30, 2018, and a 60 percent evaluation beginning on July 1, 2018, which is the maximum schedular rating for a knee replacement. 2. Prior to May 1, 2017, the record demonstrates that the Veteran exhibited loss of motion on extension of the right knee to 10 degrees, but not to 15 degrees or more. 3. Prior to May 1, 2017, the record demonstrates that the Veteran had loss of motion on flexion of the right knee to 15 degrees. 4. Prior to May 1, 2017, the Veteran's right knee was shown to have a meniscus disability with frequent episodes of locking and effusion/swelling. 5. Prior to May 1, 2017, the Veteran experienced severe recurrent subluxation or lateral instability of the right knee. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. As of May 1, 2017, the criteria for a rating in excess of 60 percent for right knee total arthroplasty have not been met. 38 C.F.R. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1-4.14, 4.40, 4.59, 4.71A, Diagnostic Code 5055. 2. Prior to May 1, 2017, the criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent for limitation of extension of the right knee have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1-4.14, 4.40, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5003 and 5261. 3. Prior to May 1, 2017, the criteria for a separate rating of 20 percent for limitation of flexion of the right knee have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1-4.14, 4.40, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5003 and 5260. 4. Prior to May 1, 2017, the criteria for a separate rating of 20 percent for a meniscus disability of the right knee have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5258. 5. Prior to May 1, 2017, the criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent for instability of the right knee for the period have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5257. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1981 to January 1985. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a December 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. This matter was previously before the Board in November 2018, at which point the claim was remanded for additional development. The most recent VA examination was performed in September 2019 and adequately addresses the directives from the November 2018 Board remand. Accordingly, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the most recent Board remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Increased Ratings Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings that is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Where there is a question as to which of two separate evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria required for that particular rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or infection in parts of the system, to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance. It is essential that the examination on which ratings are based adequately portray the anatomical damage, and the functional loss, with respect to all these elements. The functional loss may be due to absence of part, or all, of the necessary bones, joints and muscles, or associated structures, or to deformity, adhesions, defective enervation, or other pathology, or it may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part that becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.10, 4.40, 4.45; see also DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (avoidance of pyramiding) do not forbid consideration of a higher rating based on greater limitation of motion due to pain on use, including during flareups. Where entitlement to compensation has already been established, and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Nevertheless, where the evidence contains factual findings that show a change in the severity of symptoms during the course of the rating period on appeal, assignment of staged ratings would be permissible. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Regarding knee claims, a claimant who has arthritis and instability of the knee may be rated separately under Diagnostic Codes 5003, 5260, 5261, and 5257. See VAOPGCPREC 23-97. For example, when a knee disability is already rated under DC 5257 (addressing lateral instability), a separate rating may be warranted if the Veteran's knee also shows limitation of motion that at least meets the criteria for a zero-percent rating under DC 5260 (flexion limited to 60 degrees or less) or 5261 (extension limited to 5 degrees or more). See VAOPGCPREC 09-04. Moreover, a separate rating could be warranted under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, based on x-ray findings of arthritis with painful motion. In this case, the Veteran filed his claim for increased evaluation on February 7, 2013. The Veteran was in receipt of a 30 percent evaluation for right knee degenerative joint disease from January 12, 1985, to May 1, 2017, under Diagnostic Code 5257. The Veteran was also in receipt of a separate 10 percent evaluation for painful right knee limitation of extension from February 7, 2013, to May 1, 2017, under Diagnostic Code 5261. The Veteran underwent a total knee replacement and the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) recharacterized his disability as right knee total arthroplasty, awarding a 100 percent evaluation from May 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017 under 38 C.F.R. § 4.30, Diagnostic Code 5055. The 100 percent evaluation was continued through June 30, 2018, and reduced to a 60 percent evaluation beginning on July 1, 2018. Id. The Board does acknowledge that the rating criteria for the musculoskeletal system was updated during the appeal period, effective February 7, 2021; that new criteria will be addressed in a separate section below. Limitation of motion of the knee is contemplated in 38 C.F.R. § 4.71A, Diagnostic Codes 5260 and 5261. Normal range of knee motion is 140 degrees of flexion and zero degrees of extension. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate II. Diagnostic Code 5260 provides for a zero percent evaluation where flexion of the leg is only limited to 60 degrees. For a 10 percent evaluation, flexion must be limited to 45 degrees. A 20 percent evaluation is warranted where flexion is limited to 30 degrees. A 30 percent evaluation may be assigned where flexion is limited to 15 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260. Diagnostic Code 5261 provides for a zero percent evaluation where extension of the leg is limited to five degrees. A 10 percent evaluation requires extension limited to 10 degrees. A 20 percent evaluation is warranted where extension is limited to 15 degrees. A 30 percent evaluation may be assigned where the evidence shows extension limited to 20 degrees. For a 40 percent evaluation, extension must be limited to 30 degrees. And finally, where extension is limited to 45 degrees a 50 percent evaluation may be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261. Under Diagnostic Code 5256, ankylosis of the knee in a favorable angle in full extension, or in slight flexion between 0 and 10 degrees warrants a 30 percent evaluation. Ankylosis of the knee in flexion between 10 and 20 degrees warrants a 40 percent evaluation, while ankylosis in flexion between 20 and 45 degrees warrants a 50 percent evaluation. Extremely unfavorable ankylosis in flexion at an angle of 45 degrees or more warrants a 60 percent evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71A, Diagnostic Code 5256. Under Diagnostic Code 5257, a 10 percent rating is assigned when there is slight recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, a 20 percent rating when there is moderate recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, and a 30 percent evaluation for severe recurrent subluxation or lateral instability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71A. Diagnostic Code 5258 provides for a 20 percent rating for a dislocated semilunar cartilage with frequent episodes of "locking," pain, and effusion into the knee joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71A. Diagnostic Code 5259 provides for a maximum 10 percent rating for symptomatic residuals of removal of a semilunar cartilage. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71A. Diagnostic Code 5262 provides a 10 percent evaluation for malunion of the tibia and fibula with a slight knee or ankle disability, a 20 percent evaluation with a moderate knee or ankle disability, and a 30 percent evaluation with a marked knee or ankle disability. A 40 percent evaluation is warranted for nonunion of the tibia and fibula with loose motion that requires a brace. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5262. Diagnostic Code 5263 provides a 10 percent evaluation for genu recurvatum (acquired, traumatic, with weakness and insecurity in weight-bearing objectively demonstrated). 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5263. Finally, under Diagnostic Code 5055, for a total knee replacement with prosthesis, a 100 percent evaluation is assigned for 1 year following implantation of the prosthesis. After that year, a minimum rating of 30 percent disabling is assigned. With intermediate degrees of residual weakness, pain or limitation of motion, the rater is directed to evaluate as analogous to Diagnostic Codes 5256, 5261, or 5262. The minimum evaluation is 30 percent. The highest evaluation is 60 percent, which is assigned for chronic residuals consisting of severe painful motion or weakness in the affected extremity. With intermediate degrees of residual weakness, pain, or limitation of motion, the disability will be rated by analogy to Diagnostic Codes 5256, 5261 or 5262. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71A, Diagnostic Code 5055. Factual Background Turning to the evidence, the Veteran was treated by an orthopedic specialist in January 2013. He reported having pain that has progressively worsened over the years. He stated that his knee will occasionally give out on him and he has to walk with a limp. He also reported having sharp pain occasionally in the lateral side of his distal femur. On examination, he exhibited multiple healed incisions over his lower extremity. He exhibited diffuse crepitus and range of motion from 5 to 120 degrees. X-rays were reviewed and showed tricompartmental post-traumatic arthritis. The orthopedic specialist diagnosed the Veteran with right knee severe post-traumatic arthritis and right knee flexion contracture. Additionally, the Veteran was seen for a VA examination on May 18, 2013. At that time, the examiner provided diagnoses of anterior cruciate tear status post multiple anterior cruciate ligament repair and arthroscopic debridements and osteoarthritis, The Veteran reported having daily moderate to severe mechanical right knee pain. He also reported having effusion with "wrong movements" that will last for a couple of weeks and frequent instability of the right knee. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not report having flare-ups of the right knee. On initial range of motion testing, the Veteran's right knee flexion was 0 to 130 degrees with pain beginning at 90 degrees. The Veteran was unable to fully extend his right knee due to pain and extension ended at 10 degrees. Range of motion of the right knee was tested again after repetitive use. Flexion was measured at 0 to 120 degrees and extension ended at 10 degrees. The examiner concluded that the Veteran has additional functional loss of the right knee on repetitive testing with less movement than normal, pain on movement, and deformity. Other positive clinical findings include tenderness to palpation of the right knee and anterior joint instability of 2+ (5-10 millimeters). Muscle strength testing was normal. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not have a meniscal condition, but he did indicate that the Veteran had arthroscopic or other knee surgery. The examiner also noted that diagnostic imaging revealed the presence of degenerative or traumatic arthritis and evidence of a prior ACL repair with metallic screws and staple noted. Additionally, the examiner noted that the Veteran requires an ACL restraining knee brace on a constant basis for instability. However, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's knee disability does not affect his ability to work. Otherwise, the examiner concluded that the Veteran had no other pertinent physical findings, complications, signs, and/or symptoms related to his right knee diagnoses. The examiner did not note any signs of ankylosis, an impairment of the tibia or fibula, or genu recurvatum. The Veteran was next seen for a VA examination on September 19, 2014. At that time, the examiner provided a diagnosis of right lateral degenerative joint disease. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported pain in the right knees with giving out, swelling, and difficulty with walking, weight bearing, and knee bending. The Veteran reported that the pain is often unbearable. He also reported having three prior arthroscopic surgeries but is unsure what was done. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not report having flare-ups of his right knee disability. On initial range of motion testing, the Veteran's right knee flexion was 0 to 120 degrees with objective evidence of painful motion at 85 degrees. He was unable to extend his right knee fully with motion ending at 10 degrees. Range of motion of the right knee was tested again after repetitive use. Flexion was measured at 0 to 120 degrees and extension ended at 10 degrees. The examiner concluded that the Veteran has additional functional loss of the right knee on repetitive testing with less movement than normal, pain on movement, swelling, deformity, disturbance of locomotion, and interference with sitting, standing, and weight-bearing. The examiner also noted that pain could significantly limit functional ability during flareups or when the joint is used repeatedly over time, but he concluded that it did not cause additional loss of motion. Other positive clinical findings include tenderness to palpation of the right knee, decreased muscle strength of 4/5 with extension, anterior joint instability of 2+ (5-10 millimeters), and medial-lateral instability of 1+ (0-5 millimeters). The examiner concluded that instability of the right knee was moderate in severity. Additionally, the examiner concluded that the Veteran has a meniscal condition, noting that the Veteran has had a meniscectomy with a meniscal dislocation, meniscal tear, frequent episodes of joint "locking," and frequent episodes of joint pain. The examiner further noted that the Veteran has residual signs and/or symptoms due to a meniscectomy, including a bony deformity with instability, pain, swelling, and restricted active range of motion. The examiner based this finding on the physical examination and the Veteran's reports of symptoms and prior surgeries. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's right knee disability impacts his ability to work. Specifically, the examiner concluded that the Veteran is precluded from heavy lifting, walking more than one to two blocks at one time, walking more than one-eighth of a mile in a workday, standing longer than 10 minutes at one time, and standing more than one to two hours total in a workday. Additionally, the examiner noted that the Veteran requires a knee brace on a constant basis. Otherwise, the examiner concluded that the Veteran had no other pertinent physical findings, complications, signs, and/or symptoms related to his right knee diagnoses. The examiner did not reference diagnostic findings related to the right knee. The examiner did not note any signs of ankylosis, an impairment of the tibia or fibula, or genu recurvatum. Another VA examiner offered a medical opinion concerning the nature and severity of the Veteran's right knee disability in September 2019. The examiner performed a review of the record and conducted a telephone interview with the Veteran to inquire about his symptoms during a flare-up and after repeated use over time for the period from February 2013 to May 2017. The examiner noted that the Veteran's medical records during this period showed progressively worsening knee pain that result in undergoing a total knee replacement in May 2017. He elaborated that orthopedic notes from January 2013 and December 2016 describe severe right knee post-traumatic arthritis with significant functional limitations. He further indicated that the January 2013 note documented a right knee flexion contracture and the degrees of extension achievable was 5 degrees. Accordingly, the examiner concluded that there is no reason to doubt the Veteran's account of events and symptoms. From this evidence, the examiner concluded that the right knee range of motion during flare-ups and with repeated use over time is estimated to be approximately 10 degrees maximum extension and 15 degrees maximum flexion. Analysis for Increased Evaluation of Right Knee Disability Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran's appeal has been previously construed to be limited to evaluation of extension of the right knee only. However, the Board finds that the Veteran's appeal encompasses all appropriate evaluations related to an increased rating claim for his right knee disability. In so finding, the Board has considered the Court's holding in Chavis v. McDonough, No. 18-2928, 2021 LEXIS 660 (Vet. App. Apr. 16, 2021). With respect to the period beginning on May 1, 2017, the Veteran has been in receipt of the maximum schedular rating available pursuant to Diagnostic Code 5055. As noted, the Veteran had surgery on May 1, 2017, and the AOJ recharacterized his disability as a total knee replacement under Diagnostic Code 5055. He was awarded a temporary total disability rating of 100 percent through June 30, 2018, based on surgical treatment necessitating convalescence. This rating was reduced to 60 percent beginning on July 1, 2018, which represents the highest rating available one year following total knee replacement surgery. There is no diagnostic code relating to the knee or leg that allows for ratings in excess of 60 percent. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5256-5263. Furthermore, the amputation rule instructs that the combined rating for disabilities of an extremity shall not exceed the rating for the amputation at the elective level, were amputation to be performed. For example, the combined evaluations shall not exceed the 60 percent evaluation set forth under Diagnostic Code 5162, 5163, and 5164 for an amputation of the thigh at the middle or lower thirds; for amputation of the leg with defective stump, thigh amputation recommended; and, amputation not improvable by prosthesis controlled by natural knee action. 38 C.F.R. § 4.68. Accordingly, the currently assigned 60 percent evaluation for the Veteran's right total knee replacement is the maximum evaluation that can be assigned under the rating schedule and pursuant to the restrictions of the amputation rule. In other words, as a matter of law, the Veteran cannot be granted an evaluation in excess of 60 percent for the period beginning on May 1, 2017. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). Thus, the only issue that remains on appeal is evaluation of the Veteran's right knee disability prior to the total knee replacement on May 1, 2017. With respect to recurrent subluxation or instability, the Veteran was in receipt of the maximum rating available under Diagnostic Code 5257 for the period prior to May 1, 2017. Accordingly, a higher rating is not warranted. With respect to limitation of extension, the Veteran was evaluated at 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5261 and the evidence does not demonstrate that a higher evaluation is warranted. Diagnostic Code 5261 provides a 10 percent evaluation for leg extension limited to 10 degrees. Here, the May 2013 and September 2014 VA examiners indicated that the Veteran was unable to fully extend his knee and motion ended at 10 degrees. Both examiners concluded that extension of the right knee was not further limited after repetitive use. Neither examiner offered an opinion as to the Veteran's range of motion during flare-ups. However, the September 2019 VA examiner offered an opinion solely on the Veteran's right knee range of motion during flare-ups and repetitive use. This examiner estimated that the extension of the right knee was limited to 10 degrees maximum during flare-ups and with repeated use for the period from February 1, 2013, to May 1, 2017. Accordingly, a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted for limited extension of the right knee under Diagnostic Code 5261. Furthermore, a 20 percent evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5003 is not warranted as the right knee is a single major joint. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71A, Diagnostic Codes 5003, 5260, 5261. With respect to limitation of flexion, the Veteran was not provided a rating under Diagnostic Code 5260. However, the evidence of record demonstrates that a separate evaluation is warranted. On initial range of motion testing, the Veteran's flexion was measured at 130 and 120 degrees, respectively, during the May 2013 and September 2014 VA examinations. Both examiners measured flexion of the right knee at 120 degrees after repeated use. Neither examiner offered an opinion as to the Veteran's range of motion during flare-ups. However, as noted, the September 2019 VA examiner's opinion is based solely on flare-ups and repeated use over time. This examiner estimated that the Veteran's right knee flexion was limited to 15 degrees maximum during the period from February 1, 2013, to May 1, 2017. This opinion is highly probative as the examiner considered the Veteran's treating history, which includes a notation in orthopedic records of a right knee flexion contracture in January 2013. Accordingly, a separate evaluation of 30 percent is warranted under Diagnostic Code 5260, which corresponds to flexion limited to 15 degrees or less. The Board has also considered separate ratings under Diagnostic Code 5258 and 5259, which pertains to the cartilage of the knee. See Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 107 (2017). The May 2013 VA examiner concluded that the Veteran did not have a meniscal condition, but he did indicate that the Veteran had multiple knee surgeries. Conversely, the September 2014 VA examiner concluded that the Veteran had a meniscectomy with a meniscal dislocation, meniscal tear, frequent episodes of joint "locking," and frequent episodes of joint pain. The examiner further concluded that the Veteran has residual signs and/or symptoms due to a meniscectomy, including a bony deformity with instability, pain, swelling, and restricted active range of motion. These conclusions are highly probative as they are based on a physical examination of the Veteran and considered in combination with the Veteran's reports of symptoms and prior surgeries. Thus, the Board concludes that a separate evaluation of 20 percent is warranted under Diagnostic Code 5258, which corresponds to cartilage, semilunar, dislocated with frequent episodes of "locking," pain, and effusion into the joint, for the period from February 1, 2013, to May 1, 2017. Finally, the Board has considered separate evaluations for ankylosis, impairment of the tibia or fibula, or genu recurvatum. The May 2013 and September 2014 VA examiners did not document any signs of ankylosis, an impairment of the tibia or fibula, or genu recurvatum. Meanwhile, the September 2019 VA examiner opinion was limited to range of motion of the Veteran's right knee during flare-ups. Thus, the Board finds that the evidence of record fails to demonstrate ankylosis, impairment of the tibia or fibula, or genu recurvatum and concludes that the Veteran is not entitled to a higher or separate rating under Diagnostic Codes 5256, 5262 or 5263, respectively. In conclusion, the Board finds that a rating in excess of 60 percent for the right knee status post total replacement surgery is not warranted for the period beginning on May 1, 2017. With respect to the period between February 1, 2013, to May 1, 2017, an evaluation in excess of 30 percent under Diagnostic Code 5257 is not warranted. An evaluation in excess of 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5261 is also not warranted. However, the record supports a finding of separate evaluations at 30 percent under Diagnostic Code 5260 and 20 percent under Diagnostic Code 5258. In so reaching the above conclusions, the Board has appropriately applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine in this case. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. New Regulations Effective February 7, 2021 The Board notes that the criteria for knee disabilities have changed during the period covered by this appeal, effective February 7, 2021. See 85 Fed. Reg. 75453 (November 30, 2020). When a law or regulation changes during the pendency of a Veteran's appeal, the version most favorable to the Veteran applies, absent congressional intent to the contrary. The amended rating criteria, if favorable to the claim, can be applied only for periods from the effective date of the regulatory change. However, the old regulations will be considered for the periods both before and after the change was made. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g); 38 C.F.R. § 3.114; VAOPGCPREC 3-2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 33422 (2000); Kuzma v. Principi, 3541 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, the Veteran is entitled to application of the criteria that are most favorable to his claim, except that an award based on the amended regulations may not be made effective before the effective date of the change. The Board has considered these changes and finds that the new criteria respecting evaluations of knee disabilities are not as advantageous to the Veteran in this case. The significant changes related to knee disabilities were to add Diagnostic Code 5002 for active arthritic process, change the total replacement and resurfacing criteria under Diagnostic Code 5055, and add to Diagnostic Code 5257, the requirement of either (1) sprain of or tear (either complete or incomplete) of a knee ligament causing persistent instability, or (2) a diagnosed condition of the patellofemoral complex with recurrent instability (with or without surgical repair); and (3) assistive devices or bracing (either by prescription or not) to the criteria. Here, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran has an active arthritic process. Furthermore, the Veteran is already in receipt of the maximum schedular rating under Diagnostic Codes 5055 for the period to which the new regulations apply. Accordingly, the Board does not find that a higher evaluation is warranted at any time during the period on appeal for the Veteran's right knee disability when contemplating the new Rating Schedule criteria. Further, neither the Veteran nor his representative have raised any other issues, nor has the record reasonably raised any other issues, with regard to the rating claims addressed herein. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). M. M. Celli Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Beech, 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.