Citation Nr: 25005191 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 17-22 494 DATE: April 16, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to April 10, 2014, for a right wrist disability is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent as of April 10, 2014, for a right wrist disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 2007 to January 2013. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In September 2021, the Veteran testified as a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record. An August 2023 Board decision granted a 10 percent rating prior to April 10, 2014, and denied a rating in excess of 10 percent as of April 10, 2014, for a right wrist disability. The Veteran appealed that Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In March 2024, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand that vacated that part of the August 2023 Board decision that denied increased ratings for a right wrist disability and remanded the matter to the Board consistent with the Joint Motion. In August 2022 and July 2024, the Board remanded these claims to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction for additional action. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to April 10, 2014, for a right wrist disability is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent as of April 10, 2014, for a right wrist disability is remanded. Although the Board regrets the delay, additional development is needed prior to further disposition of the claims of entitlement to an increased rating for a right wrist disability. VA's statutory duty to assist the Veteran includes the duty to conduct a thorough examination so that the rating of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one. Green v. Derwinski,?1?Vet. App.?121?(1991); Snuffer v. Gober,?10?Vet. App. 400 (1997). Assistance by VA includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on a claim. 38?U.S.C. §?5103A(d);?38?C.F.R. §?3.159(c)(4). The record shows that the Veteran was most recently provided VA wrist examination in September 2024. When available evidence is too?old?for an adequate evaluation of the current condition, VA's duty to assist includes providing a more current examination. Weggenmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App.?281?(1993). The Board finds that the most recent examination may no longer indicate the current level of disability. Specifically, the Board notes that, in a March 2025 written statement, the Veteran explicitly indicated a worsening in severity of the service-connected disability since the most recent examination. The Veteran stated that a worsening in the right wrist disability caused the Veteran to have a change in employment in October 2024 and the Veteran expressed a desire to be reexamined. Therefore, the Board finds that more current examination is needed to assess the current severity and manifestations of the service-connected disability. After all outstanding medical records are associated with the claims file, more contemporaneous examination is needed to rate the claim for an increased rating for a right wrist disability. Allday v. Brown,?7?Vet. App. 517 (1995); Caffrey v. Brown, 6?Vet. App. 377 (1994); Snuffer v. Gober, 10?Vet. App. 400 (1997). The Veteran is reminded that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. A Veteran is required to cooperate with the examiner's efforts to evaluate the nature and current severity of symptomology. Wood v. Derwinski,1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). The Veteran is notified that it is his responsibility to report for any scheduled examination and to cooperate in the development of this claim. The consequences of failure to cooperate with or report for a VA examination without good cause may include denial of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The Veteran is notified that failure to cooperate during the requested VA examination may result in an adverse determination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655; Connolly v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 566 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request the Veteran identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who provided treatment for any right wrist disability. After securing the necessary releases, attempt to obtain all copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the Veteran that are not currently of record. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an examiner who has not previously examined the Veteran or provided an opinion in conjunction with this claim. Any studies or tests deemed necessary should be performed. The examiner must review the claims file and should indicate that review in the report. A clearly stated rationale should be provided with any opinions. The examiner should provide the following information: (a.) Confirm that the examiner has not previously examined the Veteran or provided an opinion in conjunction with this claim. (b.) Discuss the current nature and severity of a right wrist disability, to include all orthopedic and neurologic signs and symptoms. The examination must include range of motion testing expressed in degrees for active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing for both the left and right wrists. (c.) Describe any functional limitation due to pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, pain with use, incoordination, or on flare up. If the Veteran describes flare-ups of pain, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether there would be additional limits on functional ability during flare-ups. (d.) Discuss any neurologic impairment of the right wrist, to include the nerve or nerves affected and the severity of impairment. (e.) Determine whether the right wrist has ankylosis, or symptoms that amount to the functional equivalent of ankylosis, that include functional loss consistent with that contemplated by ankylosis. If the examination does not take place during a flare up or repetitive testing cannot be performed, the examiner should have the Veteran describe and demonstrate the extent of motion loss that occurs during flare ups or repetitive use, and should opine whether or not the Veteran experiences a condition equivalent to ankylosis during fare ups. (f.) If the right wrist has ankylosis or the functional equivalent of ankylosis, provide an estimated onset date of ankylosis, and indicate whether ankylosis manifests in favorable ankylosis in 20 to 30 degrees dorsiflexion; ankylosis in any position except favorable; unfavorable ankylosis in any degree of palmar flexion, or with ulnar or radial deviation; or extremely unfavorable ankylosis. (g.) The examiner must consider and address the Veteran's lay statements regarding right wrist symptoms. The examiner should specifically address the Veteran's complaints of wrist pain, numbness, and immobility with repeated twisting and whether those symptoms result in functional loss. Specifically, the examiner should address the Veteran's contention that without the ameliorative effects of medication, the symptoms experienced include the functional equivalent of ankylosis of the right wrist with total immobility and total loss of function. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Mondesir, 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.