Citation Nr: 21040062 Decision Date: 07/02/21 Archive Date: 07/02/21 DOCKET NO. 14-16 874 DATE: July 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased evaluation in excess of 10 percent prior to December 23, 2016, in excess of 20 percent from December 23, 2016, to December 2, 2020, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter for degenerative disc disease at L4-L5 is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for radiculopathy, sciatic nerve, left lower extremity, prior to December 23, 2016, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for radiculopathy, sciatic nerve, right lower extremity, prior to December 23, 2016, and in excess of 40 percent thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for radiculopathy, femoral nerve, left lower extremity, prior to December 23, 2016, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for radiculopathy, femoral nerve, right lower extremity, prior to December 23, 2016, and in excess of 30 percent thereafter, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disability for the period prior to December 23, 2016, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1967 to September 1973, and again from March 1974 to June 1988. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a June 2017 hearing. A transcript of that hearing is in the record. The Board previously remanded this matter in February 2021. There has not been substantial compliance with the remand directives. Another remand is needed before the Board can adjudicate the claims on appeal. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board has remanded the above issues multiple times to obtain new VA examination findings consistent with Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). Most recently, in April 2021, the Veteran underwent a VA back examination. The examiner concluded that there was no evidence of pain in weight-bearing, nonweight-bearing, active motion, passive motion, or on rest/non-movement. The examiner also noted in the examination report that passive range of motion testing was not performed because it "may cause the Veteran severe pain or the risk of further injury." The examination report further states that passive range-of-motion testing resulted in the same results as active range-of-motion testing. The examiner failed to provide any explanation for the inconsistent findings in the examination report. No explanation was provided for why Correia-compliant range-of-motion testing could not be performed given the examiner's determination that there was no evidence of pain on initial range-of-motion testing. A new VA examination with complete findings for the Veteran's back disability is needed on remand. As the radiculopathy and TDIU claims are intertwined with the back claim on appeal, further consideration of these issues must be deferred. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination of the current severity of his service-connected degenerative disc disease at L4-L5 and associated bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The examiner must test the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, range-of-motion with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. If range-of-motion findings in any of these positions cannot be obtained and documented in an examination report, the examiner must explain why this is so. 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. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the low back disability alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran's low back disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding flare-ups, symptoms, or functional impairment 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 should specifically identify all neurological manifestations related to the low back, noting any nerve involved and the extent of that involvement. 2. Please review the examination report to ensure that it actually complies with the remand directives stated above. Specifically, if range-of-motion measurements are not provided by the examiner in compliance with Correia, the examination must be returned to obtain complete medical findings. 3. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issues on appeal, including all rating periods for the back and related radiculopathies and the TDIU claim. M. E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Komperda, 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.