Citation Nr: 21041717 Decision Date: 07/10/21 Archive Date: 07/10/21 DOCKET NO. 16-30 473 DATE: July 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 20 percent for the service-connected cervical spine (neck) disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 20 percent for the service-connected thoracolumbar spine (low back) disorder is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a service-connected right knee impairment is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected left knee arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a service-connected left knee meniscal condition is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a service-connected right ankle condition is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected radiculopathy of the lower left extremity is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The appellant is a veteran (the Veteran) who had active duty service from June 1973 to November 1975, October 1982 to January 1995, and January 2003 to April 2008. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2021 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (Veterans Court). The appeal originated from a July 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2020, the Veteran presented testimony at a Board hearing in Washington, DC, chaired by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. At the Board hearing, the Veteran was informed of the basis for the RO's denial of his claims and he was informed of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate each claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. In a May 2020 decision, the Board granted an increased rating of 20 percent for the service-connected neck disability and denied the remaining claims. The Veteran appealed that decision to the Veterans Court. In a January 2021 Order, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand, the Veterans Court vacated the Board's decision in part, and remanded these issues to the Board for additional development consistent with the Joint Motion. Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 20 percent for the service-connected neck disorder. Entitlement to a disability rating higher than 20 percent for the service-connected low back disorder. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a service-connected right knee impairment. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected left knee arthritis. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a service-connected left knee meniscal condition. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a service-connected right ankle condition. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected radiculopathy of the lower left extremity. The parties to the Joint Motion agreed that the Board failed to obtain adequate medical examinations with respect to each claim. Specifically, that the examinations obtained did not comply with the holding in Sharp v. Shulkin 29 Vet. App. 26, 34 (2017). The parties agreed that new examinations were required. The parties also agreed that the Board should have considered whether a rating for right lower extremity radiculopathy should be assigned. The Board finds that, because there is conflicting evidence regarding the existence of right lower extremity radiculopathy, a medical opinion is necessary. The parties agreed that the Board should have considered separate ratings under Diagnostic Codes 5258 or 5259 for meniscal pathology. The Board finds that, because the symptomatology claimed to be due to meniscal pathology may overlap with the already service-connected knee disabilities, a medical opinion is necessary. Lastly, the parties agreed that the Veteran "shall be afforded an opportunity to identify all relevant outstanding records of treatment, and VA must make reasonable efforts to obtain these properly identified records." The Board is bound by the findings contained in the Joint Motion, as adopted by the Veterans Court. See Chisem v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 526, 527-8 (1997) (under the "law of the case" doctrine, appellate courts generally will not review or reconsider issues that have already been decided in a previous appeal of the same case, and therefore, Board is not free to do anything contrary to the Court's prior action with respect to the same claim). Accordingly, these matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all relevant outstanding records of treatment. Make reasonable efforts to obtain all properly identified records. 2. Schedule examinations of the service-connected neck, low back (and radiculopathy), bilateral knee, and bilateral ankle disorders. The examiner(s) is/are asked to provide all current findings for each joint and extremity. In compliance with Veterans Court precedent, the examiner(s) is/are asked to estimate range of motion during symptom flares and after repeated use over a period of time. This can be based on an examination being conducted during a symptom flare or after repeated use over a period of time, or based on the Veteran's description of his motion under such circumstances. The low back examiner is asked to offer an opinion as to whether the Veteran has radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, and, if so, to report the manifestations and severity of the condition. In so doing, the examiner is asked to review the February 14, 2020, private medical examination and outpatient treatment records. The knee examiner is asked to offer an opinion as to whether the Veteran has meniscal pathology, and, if so, to report the manifestations and severity of the condition(s). In so doing, the examiner is asked to review the November 23, 2013, MRI and radiology examinations and the November 2013 VA examination report. All opinions are to be accompanied by a rationale consistent with the evidence of record. A discussion of the pertinent evidence, relevant medical treatises, and generally accepted medical principles is requested. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner is asked to please provide complete explanations stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner is asked to explain whether any inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that the examiner has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. 3. Readjudicate the remanded claims. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate time period for response. The case should then be returned to the Board for further consideration, if otherwise in order. JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Cramp 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.