Citation Nr: 22018540 Decision Date: 03/29/22 Archive Date: 03/29/22 DOCKET NO. 12-14 270 DATE: March 29, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent based on limitation of flexion from April 19, 2017, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent based on limitation of flexion of the left knee prior to April 19, 2017, is remanded. Entitlement to a separate rating in excess of 20 percent based on limitation of extension from April 19, 2017, to January 16, 2020, for the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to a separate rating for left knee instability prior to January 15, 2020, and in excess of 10 percent thereafter is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for limitation of extension of the left knee prior to April 19, 2017, is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for limitation of extension of the left knee from January 16, 2020, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 1962 to August 1962. The Board denied the above claims in a January 2021 decision. The Veteran appealed the January 2021 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an October 2021 order, which incorporated the parties Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), the Court vacated and remanded the January 2021 Board decision to the extent that it denied these claims. This case is now once again before the Board. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent based on limitation of flexion from April 19, 2017, is remanded. 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee disability is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent based on limitation of flexion of the left knee prior to April 19, 2017, is remanded. 4. Entitlement to a separate rating in excess of 20 percent based on limitation of extension from April 19, 2017, to January 16, 2020, for the left knee is remanded. 5. Entitlement to a separate rating for left knee instability prior to January 15, 2020, and in excess of 10 percent thereafter is remanded. 6. Entitlement to a compensable rating for limitation of extension of the left knee prior to April 19, 2017, is remanded. 7. Entitlement to a compensable rating for limitation of extension of the left knee from January 16, 2020, is remanded. The JMPR vacated and remanded the January 2021 Board decision because the Board had previously remanded these claims in July 2020 in order to obtain a VA examination. A September 2020 VA examination was obtained; however, the Court noted the examiner failed to discuss whether there was pain on active range of motion and on weight bearing and did not provide range of motion testing for these criteria as requested in the July 2020 Board remand and the Court's holding in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 160 (2016). As such, in order to comply with the JMPR, the Board finds a remand for a new VA examination is warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. In order to comply with the JMPR, afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected knee disabilities with a different VA examiner that the July 2020 VA examiner. All studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. Ensure that the examiner provides all information required for rating purposes, including ranges of active and passive motion and with and without weight-bearing. The examiner must describe whether pain, weakness, or incoordination significantly limits functional ability during flare-ups or repetitive use, and if so, the examiner must estimate range of motion during flare-ups. If the examination does not take place during a flare-up, the examiner should have the Veteran describe and/or demonstrate the extent of motion loss during flare-up or repetitive use and provide the extent of motion loss described in terms of degrees. If there is no pain and/or limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. It is insufficient to conclude that the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation based solely on the fact that the VA examinations were not performed during a flare-up. (Continued on the next page) The VA examiner is specifically asked to address the Veteran's lay statements regarding instability. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Boyd, 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.