Citation Nr: 21032235 Decision Date: 05/26/21 Archive Date: 05/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-34 931 DATE: May 26, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a torn medial meniscus and patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee (claimed as a left knee disorder) is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for a right heel and foot callus disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1969 to July 1971. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a Board hearing via videoconference in his July 2016 VA Form 9. The hearing was scheduled to take place in August 2019; however, in an August 2019 Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran withdrew his hearing request. As such, the hearing request is considered withdrawn. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a torn medial meniscus and patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee is remanded. The Veteran asserts that the symptoms associated with his service-connected torn medial meniscus and patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee is more severe than presently evaluated. Specifically, the Veteran stated that his left knee is a constant source of discomfort and fatigue that limits his mobility and ability to walk and stand. See July 2013 NOD. The Board notes that the Veteran was last afforded a VA knee and lower leg examination in July 2012. Here, the July 2012 VA examination is too remote in time to address the current severity of the Veteran's service-connected left knee disability. See also Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997) (holding that a Veteran was entitled to a new examination after a two-year period between the last VA examination and the Veteran's contention that his disability had increased in severity) and Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1994) (an examination too remote for rating purposes cannot be considered "contemporaneous"). Therefore, the Board must remand this matter to afford the Veteran an opportunity to undergo a new VA examination to assess the current nature and severity of his left knee disability. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995), 60 Fed. Reg. 43,186 (1995). Additionally, the Board notes that while the Veteran's claim was pending, two precedential decisions were issued which also require the Veteran's claim to be remanded. In Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that VA examinations include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. Additionally, in Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), the Court held that a VA examiner must "elicit relevant information as to the Veteran's flares or ask him to describe the additional functional loss, if any, he suffered during flares and then, if possible, estimate the Veteran's functional loss in terms of degree of additional range of motion loss due to pain on use or during flare-ups based on all the evidence of record." Therefore, the Court's holdings in Correia and Sharp establish additional requirements that must be met prior to finding that a VA examination is adequate. As the last examination did not comply with both Correia and Sharp, the Board finds that a new VA examination is warranted. 2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for a right heel and foot callus disorder is remanded. The Veteran contends that a compensable rating is warranted for his service-connected right heel and foot callus disorder. In July 2014, the RO issued a rating decision granting service connection for a right heel and foot callus disorder. In the rating decision, the RO assigned a noncompensable rating, effective July 25, 2013. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD), as to the evaluation of the disability, in August 2014. This NOD is considered timely, as it was filed within one year of the rating decision. However, the RO has yet to issue a statement of the case for this issue. See Manlicon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). On remand, an SOC should be issued to the Veteran. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him for his service-connected disabilities on appeal. The Veteran should be requested to sign any necessary authorization for release of medical records to VA, and appropriate steps should be made to obtain any identified records. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. If the records are unavailable, notify the Veteran in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 2. Then, issue a Statement of the Case for the issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for a right heel and foot callus disorder. 3. Next, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected torn medial meniscus and patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee. 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. **In so doing, 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 also 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). GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Hanson, 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.