Citation Nr: 22015658 Decision Date: 03/18/22 Archive Date: 03/18/22 DOCKET NO. 15-08 749 DATE: March 18, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a disability rating more than 30 percent for mood disorder (claimed as depression) associated with chronic lumbar sprain with spondylosis, severe disk disease at L4-5 and L5-S1 with degenerative spondylolisthesis at 4-5 and radiational discomfort to buttocks is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating more than 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome with chondromalacia of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from February 1973 to December 1980. He also had non-federal service in the Arkansas Army National Guard from October 1983 to August 1988. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decisions. In a March 2021 decision, the Board, among other actions, denied the Veteran's appeal seeking an increased evaluation for his s-0c psychiatric disability and remanded his appealed issues for an increased evaluation for his service-connected left knee disability and a TDIU. The Veteran appealed the portion of the Board's decision which denied his appealed issue seeking an increased evaluation for his service-connected psychiatric disability to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). The parties filed a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion), and a December 2021 Order of the Court vacated the portion of the Board's decision that denied a rating higher than 30 percent for the Veteran's psychiatric disability because the Board did not adequately address potentially favorable evidence. More specifically, the Joint Motion concluded that the Board failed to address an August 2020 lay statement submitted by the Veteran describing symptoms of his mood disorder, including social isolation and thoughts of suicide. 1. Entitlement to a disability rating more than 30 percent for mood disorder (claimed as depression) associated with chronic lumbar sprain with spondylosis, severe disk disease at L4-5 and L5-S1 with degenerative spondylolisthesis at 4-5 and radiational discomfort to buttocks The Veteran was last examined for his mood disorder in October 2018. However, he submitted a statement in August 2020 recounting symptoms including periods of deep depression, suicidal thoughts, and mood swings. In light of these statements, the Board finds that there has been a potential worsening and this claim must be remanded for a new VA examination. See Palczewski v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 174, 181-82 (2007); Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400, 403 (1997); see also Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185, 191 (1995) (VA must provide a new examination where a veteran claims the disability is worse than when originally rated and the available evidence is too old to adequately evaluate the current severity); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377, 381 (1995). 2. Entitlement to a disability rating more than 10 percent for patellofemoral pain syndrome with chondromalacia of the left knee The Veteran's last VA examination for his service-connected left knee disability was in September 2021. Prior to this examination, however, the Veteran was examined in January 2011 and information regarding range of motion in passive motion in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing was not conducted. Consequently, the Board finds that it must remand the claim in order for a retroactive opinion with regards to whether the results of the January 2011 VA examination would have been reduced if tested in both active and passive motion and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) (38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that VA examinations include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint). 3. Entitlement to TDIU With respect to the Veteran's assertion that he is unable to work due to his claimed service-connected disabilities, the Board concludes that further development may provide evidence in support of his claim for TDIU. The Board has, therefore, concluded that it would be inappropriate at this juncture to enter a final determination on that issue. See Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11 (1998), citing Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991) (where a decision on one issue would have a "significant impact" upon another, and that impact in turn could render any review of the decision on the other claim meaningless and a waste of appellate resources, the claims are inextricably intertwined). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for VA examinations in order to determine the current severity of his service-connected mood disorder. The claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. 2. Provide the Veteran with an addendum opinion from the September 2021 VA examiner as to whether the Veteran's range of motion results from the January 2011 VA examination would have been reduced if tested in both active and passive motion and in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing. To the examiner's best ability, the additional range of motion loss should be described and estimated in degrees. If the examiner is unable to provide the requested opinion in this case, he or she should clearly explain the basis for this decision. If the September 2021 VA examiner is unavailable to provide the requested opinion, please submit these questions to another appropriate examiner. 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 private attorney 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 A. Daniels, 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.