Citation Nr: 22041353 Decision Date: 07/19/22 Archive Date: 07/19/22 DOCKET NO. 17-23 050 DATE: July 19, 2022 REMANDED A rating more than 10 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy (LLE) from May 13, 2015, to May 23, 2019, is remanded. A rating more than 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy (RLE) from May 13, 2015, to May 23, 2019, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 2000 to September 2002. In January 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran seeks a rating more than 10 percent for his bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy from May 13, 2015, to May 23, 2019. In June 2021, the Board issued a decision granting separate ratings for the Veteran's right lower extremity and left lower extremity radiculopathy as well as a higher rating for his low back disability. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In March 2022, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the Veteran and VA's Office of the General Counsel that vacated the Board's decision to the extent that it granted 10 percent, and no more, for the Veteran's right lower extremity and left lower extremity radiculopathy for the period from May 13, 2015, to May 23, 2019. The Court's order remanded the matter for action consistent with the terms of the JMPR. The Veteran was afforded a VA medical examination in March 2021. However, the parties in the JMPR agreed that the Board erred by not adequately explaining the Veteran's mild and moderate symptoms from his radiculopathy in LLE and RLE. Therefore, the Board finds that a new examination is necessary to determine the severity and impact of the Veteran's condition during the appealed period, and in particular, in light of the JMPR, a determination by a medical professional as to whether the Veteran's condition is mild, moderate or severe during the appealed period. The examiner must provide a complete rationale by describing and explaining his symptoms during the appealed period. Thus, the Board must remand this matter for compliance with the Court's March 2022 order granting the parties' joint motion to remand. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); see also Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 414, 425 (2006) (holding that the duty to ensure compliance with the Court's order extends to the terms of the agreement struck by the parties that forms the basis of the joint motion to remand); cf. McBurney v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2009) (Board has a duty on remand to ensure compliance with the favorable terms stated in the JMR or explain why the terms will not be fulfilled.). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain complete VA and Non-VA treatment records of the Veteran's radiculopathy in LLE and RLE. 2. Notify the Veteran that he may submit additional lay statements from himself and from other individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the nature, extent, impact and severity of his radiculopathy. The Veteran should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this lay evidence. 3. Schedule a VA examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc. if an in-person examination is not feasible). Whether an in-person examination is necessary should be determined by the examiner. The examiner must determine the severity and impact of the Veteran's service-connected radiculopathy in his LLE and RLE for the period from May 13, 2015, and May 23, 2019. The examiner must opine as to whether the Veteran has mild, moderate or severe symptoms. In doing so, the examiner must provide a reason for his or her assessment to assist the Board in complying with the Court's March 2022 order granting the parties' JMPR. In doing so, the examiner must specifically acknowledge and discuss the Veteran's medical and competent lay reports. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Alvarado- 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.