Citation Nr: 22015684 Decision Date: 03/18/22 Archive Date: 03/18/22 DOCKET NO. 17-64 849 DATE: March 18, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a back sprain prior to July 13, 2016 is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a back sprain from July 13, 2016 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from November 2003 to January 2011. This matter is on appeal from a September 2013 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2020, a hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is in the record. The case was previously before the Board in October 2020 and June 2021 when it was remanded for further development. The matter of entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) was previously before the Board on appeal. A June 2021 rating decision awarded entitlement to TDIU, effective September 4, 2012, which covers the entire period that had been on appeal. As such, the matter of entitlement to TDIU has been resolved in full and will not be further addressed herein. See Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356 (2018). 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a back sprain prior to July 13, 2016 is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for a back sprain from July 13, 2016 is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an increased rating for his service-connected back sprain, which is currently evaluated at 10 percent prior to July 13, 2016 and 20 percent from July 13, 2016. However, upon review of the record, the Board finds that an additional opinion must be obtained to determine the functional limitation of the Veteran's back disability during flare-ups. As noted above, this matter was remanded for further development in June 2021, when the Board in part sought an opinion in which the examiner was asked to identify any symptoms and functional impairment of the Veteran's disability. The record reflects that the Veteran was provided with a VA examination in July 2016 in which the Veteran reported flare-ups that cause him to be unable to exercise, run, garden, and drive. However, the examiner stated that an estimate of range of motion during flare-ups could not be provided because an examination would have to be provided during a flare-up. The examiner did not consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the functional impact to provide an estimate of the range of motion during flare-ups. Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 34-36 (2017). On November 2020 VA examination, the Veteran did not report having flare ups and, as a result, an estimate of range of motion during flare-ups was not provided. However, as the Veteran has reported having flare ups during the period on appeal and as the record reflects that no opinion has adequately addressed the estimated range of motion during flare-ups, the Board finds that further examination and opinion is necessary. The record also reflects the Veteran receives VA treatment; thus, updated VA treatment records should be associated with the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records for the period from June 2021 to the present. 2. After completing the development requested in item 1, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected back 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. 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, including statements made at the July 2016 VA examination. (Continued on the next page) 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). M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. H. White, 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.