Citation Nr: 21040272
Decision Date: 07/03/21	Archive Date: 07/03/21

DOCKET NO. 16-37 353
DATE: July 3, 2021

REMANDED

The claim of entitlement to a higher initial rating for a low back disability, rated as 10 percent disabling from March 16, 2015, as 20 percent disabling from June 26, 2017, and as 40 percent disabling from July 5, 2019, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1984 to April 1990. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a November 2015 rating decision by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

This matter was remanded by the Board in October 2019 for further development.  In response, the Veteran underwent VA examination in January 2020.  Another remand is warranted for an addendum medical report.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271(1998); D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). 

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Obtain a retrospective opinion to determine the severity of the Veteran's low back disability for the time period prior to June 26, 2017. 

The examiner should provide a retrospective opinion, as best as can be ascertained from the Veteran's self-reports as well as from clinical records and other evidence, for the time period prior to June 26, 2017.

(1) The examiner should provide an opinion as to the range of motion prior to June 26, 2017, in (1) active motion, (2) passive motion, (3) in weight-bearing, and (4) in nonweight-bearing.

(2) The examiner is asked to provide an opinion estimating any additional degrees of limited motion caused by functional loss during a flare-up or after repeated use over time.  

If the examiner is unable to provide the estimates requested in (1) and (2), the examiner should provide a specific explanation as to why the available information, including the Veteran's own statements, is not sufficient to make such an estimate. 

(Continued on the next page)

If the examiner cannot provide the requested information without resorting to speculation, he/she should explain why an opinion cannot be provided (e.g. lack of sufficient information/evidence, the limits of medical knowledge, etc.)

 

 

C. J. McEntee

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. Mohammad

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.