Citation Nr: 22013011 Decision Date: 03/08/22 Archive Date: 03/08/22 DOCKET NO. 17-13 089 DATE: March 8, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably, to include active duty from December 1967 to September 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) granting service connection for radiculopathy of the right and left lower extremities and assigning initial 20-percent ratings from the effective date of December 23, 2010. After review of the evidence, the Board finds that remand is required in order to obtain a new medical examination regarding the current severity of the Veteran's disabilities. The Veteran's disabilities are rated under Diagnostic Code (DC) 8620, under which a higher rating may be available if the condition manifests in marked muscle atrophy. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. At the most recent complete examination on April 14, 2015, the Veteran reported severe constant pain, severe numbness, and moderate paresthesias and/or dysesthesias in both his legs, though the examiner found no atrophy. Likewise, at a February 5, 2013 C&P examination, the clinician checked the box for no muscle atrophy, though he remarked that there was "[d]isuse atrophy" and "[a]trophy of deconditioning but not focal." After the matter was appealed to the Board, the Veteran submitted a September 13, 2016 letter from Dr. G.B., who wrote that the Veteran has "severe sciatic nerve injury with muscle atrophy in both legs dating back to 2007." The evidence also shows that at a May 14, 2011 C&P examination the Veteran was found to have "widespread atrophy in both legs, worse on left," and in an August 2014 statement the Veteran wrote that he has muscle atrophy below his knees and that his feet dangle and drop. Given this conflicting evidence regarding whether the Veteran has muscle atrophy in his lower extremities that is due to his service-connected radiculopathy, the existence of which could support higher ratings for the disabilities, the Board finds that a new examination must be obtained. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a). Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination regarding the current severity of his service-connected radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities. 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. The examiner is asked to opine, to the extent possible, on the time periods since 2010 during which it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran had marked muscle atrophy. The examiner must consider and discuss (a) the finding at the May 2011 C&P examination that the Veteran had "widespread atrophy in both legs, worse on left," (b) the remark at the February 2013 C&P examination that the Veteran had "disuse atrophy" and "atrophy of deconditioning but not focal" in the lower extremities, (c) the September 2016 letter from Dr. G.B. that the Veteran has "muscle atrophy in both legs dating back to 2007," and (d) the Veteran's August 2014 statement that he had muscle atrophy below the knees. Additionally, if the feet drop and dangle, if no active movement of the muscles below the knees is possible, and if knee flexion is weakened or lost, then the examiner is asked to opine, to the extent possible, on the time periods since 2010 during which it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran had foot drop. As to these symptoms, the examiner is asked to consider the Veteran's August 2014 statement that his feet dangle and drop. 2. After the above development and any other development deemed necessary is completed, readjudicate the Veteran's claims, to include consideration of ratings under additional diagnostic codes where appropriate. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Davis, Associate 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.