Citation Nr: 21031071 Decision Date: 05/20/21 Archive Date: 05/20/21 DOCKET NO. 17-67 402 DATE: May 20, 2021 REMANDED The issue of a disability rating of more than 10 percent for service-connected right knee chondromalacia and degenerative joint disease is remanded. The issue of a disability rating of more than 10 percent for service-connected left knee chondromalacia and degenerative joint disease prior to April 15, 2019 and in excess of 30 from June 1, 2020 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1979 to July 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2017 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). During the course of the appeal the Veteran's was granted a temporary total rating for the left knee from April 15, 2019 to June 1, 2020, and a rating of 30 percent thereafter. The Veteran had a hearing before the undersigned Veterans' Law Judge in February 2021. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the electronic claims file. The Issue of Entitlement to an Increased Rating for the Right Knee is Remanded. The Issue of Entitlement to an Increased Rating for the Left Knee is Remanded The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE ADJUDICATOR The Veteran was last examined for his knee disabilities in January 2018. Since that time the Veteran had a total left knee arthroplasty in April 2019. The Veteran and his spouse also testified that the right knee condition has worsened since the January 2018 examination. The Veteran is competent to allege worsening. Therefore, a current examination is needed. Additionally, the examination in January 2018 was incomplete. The Veteran reported that his knee disabilities worsened after repetitive use; however, the examiner did not provide an estimated range of motion for either knee after this reported worsening. Instead the examiner stated that such an estimate could not be provided without observation. The examiner did not document whether she asked the Veteran to describe the functional loss he experienced after repetitive use. In Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), it was found that a Veteran's responses to such questioning can provide a basis for an estimate. As such, the new examination should elicit information on the functional loss due to repetitive use or flareups. REMAND DIRECTIVES FOLLOW 2. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral knee disability The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must test the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. 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). The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. 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). 4. Readjudicate the issues on appeal. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period should be allowed for response before the case is returned to the Board. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Reed, 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.