Citation Nr: 22010511 Decision Date: 02/23/22 Archive Date: 02/23/22 DOCKET NO. 15-03 348 DATE: February 23, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a left ankle disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from September 1968 to May 1974. In March 2018, the Veteran presented sworn testimony during a Travel Board hearing in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a left ankle disability is remanded. The Veteran's left ankle claim was remanded most recently in August 2021 to obtain a new VA examination, including electrodiagnostic testing. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) obtained two new VA examinations and electrodiagnostic testing in October and November 2021. The November 2021 examiner provided a contradictory opinion, finding both that the Veteran did not have drop foot and that he had drop foot that was not related to his service-connected left ankle disability. Additionally, the examiner indicated that the Veteran had no active range of motion for his left ankle and measured 0 degrees of dorsiflexion and plantar flexion. This suggests that the Veteran may experience the functional equivalent of ankylosis. As such, remand is also necessary to obtain an opinion that addresses whether the Veteran's left ankle symptoms resulted in the functional equivalent of ankylosis and, if so, to what extent. See Chavis v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 1 (2021). In light of these deficiencies, the claim must be remanded for an addendum opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Send the Veteran's claims file to an appropriate clinician for an addendum opinion on the severity of his service-connected left ankle disability. The Veteran may be recalled for examination if deemed necessary. The examiner should specifically address the following: (a.) The examiner should clarify whether the Veteran CURRENTLY HAS DROP FOOT or any neurological deficiency affecting the left ankle. If so, the examiner should state whether it is related to (CAUSED OR AGGRAVATED BY (*incremental increase)) by his service-connected left ankle disability. They should specifically address the findings of an absent response in the left superficial peroneal nerve on the November 2021 electrodiagnostic testing. The term "incremental increase in disability" means additional impairment of earning capacity. Objective measurement, or numerical quantification, is not required to ascertain an increase in disability. Moreover, any "incremental increase in disability" need not be permanent. (b.) The examiner should opine as to whether the Veteran's range of motion is so diminished that it is the functional equivalent of ankylosis. If so, the examiner should opine as to the degrees at which the Veteran has the functional equivalent of ankylosis, consistent with the rating criteria under Diagnostic Code 5270. Rationale for all requested opinions shall be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation stating why this is so. In so doing, the examiner shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question. 2. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE EXAMINATION AND ENSURE THAT THE BELOW DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL. IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. IF ANY TESTING IS NOT COMPLETED, OR ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. [CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE] YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moore, 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.