Citation Nr: 21042308 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 15-38 209 DATE: July 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative joint disease of the right knee is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative joint disease of the left knee is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1980 August 1992. The Board previously remanded this matter in February 2019. As will be discussed below, there has still not been substantial compliance with the remand directives, and thus, another remand is needed before the Board can adjudicate the issues on appeal. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). While the record contains an October 2019 VA examination regarding the Veteran's bilateral knee disabilities, the examination does not comply with the requirements in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). While the examination report notes that passive range-of-motion testing for the knees was the same as the measurements obtained on active range-of-motion, the examination report fails to provide range-of-motion findings in weight-bearing or in non-weight bearing positions. Instead, the examination report simply states that there was objective evidence of pain when testing under these conditions. No explanation was provided by the examiner for why range-of-motion findings could not be provided. Additionally, the Veteran's representative argued in a June 2021 statement that the examination findings with respect to flare-ups of the knee disabilities were inadequate in light of the Veteran's statements reporting intermittent worsening of symptoms and sudden recurrence of symptoms such as locking, feelings of weakness and giving way. Remand is needed for new VA examinations with more thorough findings in compliance with Correia and Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible), to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral knee disabilities. 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 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 respective disabilities alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran's bilateral knee disabilities on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. An opinion regarding flare-ups should be based on information available in the claims file as to frequency, duration, characteristics, severity or functional loss, to include lay statements. 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). 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 and evidence of flare-ups of the knees is not addressed in compliance with Sharp, the examination must be returned to obtain complete medical findings. 3. Thereafter, the AOJ must readjudicate the Veteran's appealed issues in light of the totality of evidence of record. If any benefit sought is not granted to the fullest extent, the AOJ must provide the Veteran and his representative with a copy of the readjudication and afford them an appropriate period to respond. SCOTT W. DALE Acting 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.