Citation Nr: 22018286 Decision Date: 03/28/22 Archive Date: 03/28/22 DOCKET NO. 16-09 403 DATE: March 28, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the left shoulder rotator cuff tear is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1983 to November 1983; from April 2002 to June 2002; from April 2003 to June 2004; from September 2007 to March 2008; from April 2009 to August 2009; and, from August 2009 to August 2010. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision. In February 2019, the Board issued a decision denying entitlement to an increased rating for a left shoulder disability. The Veteran subsequently appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Court vacated and remanded the case to the Board for action consistent with the Memorandum Decision. In March 2021 and September 2021, the Board remanded this appeal for further development. 1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the left shoulder rotator cuff tear is remanded. While the record contains a contemporaneous VA examination regarding the Veteran's left shoulder disability, the October 2021 VA examination does not comply with the requirements in Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 34-36 (2017) and Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016). The VA examiner found there was pain on several ranges of motion of the left shoulder and found that this pain caused functional loss. However, the examiner did not state at what degree pain began. This section of the examination was left blank. Thus, the examination report is inadequate, and a new examination is necessary. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected left shoulder rotator cuff tear. 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 test the Veteran's active motion, passive motion, and pain with weight-bearing and without weight-bearing. If pain is noted on active and/or passive motion and pain is found to cause functional loss, then the examiner must state at what degree pain begins for each range of motion. 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). 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, after repetitive-use testing, and with repeated use over time. 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. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. S. M. WATKINS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E.Long-Ellis, 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.