Citation Nr: 22011197 Decision Date: 02/25/22 Archive Date: 02/25/22 DOCKET NO. 19-26 364 DATE: February 25, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent disabling for degenerative changes of the lumbar spine is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1968 to January 1980. Entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent disabling for degenerative changes of the lumbar spine is remanded. In his October 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran asserted that his service-connected lumbar disability increased in severity since the Veteran was last examined by VA. The Veteran should be provided an opportunity to report for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his lumbar disablity. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. The Board notes that the evidence of record does not indicate a current diagnosis of a bilateral lower radiculopathy condition, however, considering the examination now required for the lumbar condition, the Board finds an opportunity to confirm whether a diagnosis exists and thus finds these issues inextricably intertwined. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected lumbar disability. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. (a.) In so doing, the examiner MUST test the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. 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). (b.) In so doing, 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. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement based on direct observation, the examiner should provide an estimate, if at all possible, of the additional impairment due to flare-ups based on the other evidence of record and the Veteran's statements. 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). 2. If a diagnosis of lower radiculopathy is found on the Veteran's lumbar examination, Is the lower radiculopathy at least as likely as not related to service? Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). Optional: In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of his/her in-service injury and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of his/her current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. A. Elliott II, 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.