Citation Nr: 21041390 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-58 504A DATE: July 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the right knee is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1987 to May 1990. He passed away in December 2016 and the Appellant, his surviving spouse, has been substituted as the claimant. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Appellant testified at a hearing with the undersigned in August 2020. A transcript of that hearing has been added to the Veteran's file. This issue was previously remanded by the Board in January 2021 and has since been returned for further adjudication. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the left knee is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for chondromalacia of the right knee is remanded. Although the Board regrets additional delay, remand is necessary to obtain an opinion that fully addresses the above claims. These issues were remanded by the Board in January 2021 to obtain an addendum opinion on if the Veteran's claimed flare-ups further caused additional loss of motion. Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 34-36 (2017). An addendum opinion was provided in February 2021. The examiner stated it is more likely than not that the Veteran's left knee locking was pseudo-locking. Pseudo-locking results in quickly resolving limited range of motion and does not cause prolonged loss of range of motion during a flare. Based on all the data available, the examiner stated that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's flares of his knee condition were not accompanied by additional loss of motion. The Board finds that this opinion does not contain an adequate rationale for why the Veteran did not suffer from additional loss of motion during a flare. While this opinion addressed the claim of locking of the left knee, it merely provided a bare statement that the Veteran did not, in general, suffer from additional loss of motion during a flare-up, and did not provide a rationale for this conclusion. As such, remand is necessary to obtain an adequate opinion with supporting rationale. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the claims file, including a copy of this remand, for an addendum opinion. The claims file, including this remand, should be reviewed by the examiner and such review should be noted in the examination report. The examiner must provide a retrospective medical opinion, as best as can be ascertained from a review of the Veteran's self-reports, his VA treatment records, the February 2016 VA examination report, and the Appellant's testimony in August 2020. The retrospective opinion must estimate any additional degrees of limited motion of the Veteran's knees caused by functional loss during a flare-up for the time period from January 2016 to December 2016. 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 should provide a comprehensive rationale for all opinion(s) provided. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Hofmeister 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.