Source: https://va-claim.com/2018/10/27/entitlement-to-a-rating-greater-than-10-percent-for-a-right-knee-disability-entitlement-to-a-rating-greater-than-20-percent-for-a-left-knee-disability-remanded-citation-nr-18131311/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 09:06:58+00:00

Document:
Entitlement to a rating greater than 10 percent for a right knee disability is remanded.
Entitlement to a rating greater than 20 percent for a left knee disability is remanded.
Although the Board regrets the additional delay, a remand is necessary to ensure that due process is followed and that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim so that he is afforded every possible consideration.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2017).
The Veteran had active military service from December 1987 to January 2008.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the March 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia.  The Veteran appeared at a July 2015 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record.  This matter was previously before the Board in September 2017 and was remanded for further development.
The Veteran’s left knee disability is currently rated as 20 percent disabling and right knee disability is currently rated as 10 percent disabling under Diagnostic Codes 5261 and 5257, which considers limitation of extension of the leg and other impairments of the knee.
In September 2017, the Board remanded this matter for the Veteran to undergo a VA examination in accordance with Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016).  In that decision, the Court held that VA examinations must include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight bearing and non-weight bearing, and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint.  Id.
Subsequently, in April 218, the Veteran underwent a VA examination.  However, the examiner did not discuss the limited range of motion due to pain on weight bearing, as required by Correia.  As a matter of law, a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran the right to compliance with the Board’s remand order. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270-71 (1998). As such, in accordance with Stegall, remand for full compliance with the Board’s prior remand is warranted.
Since the claims file is being remanded, it should be updated to include any outstanding VA treatment records.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992).
1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records and associate those documents with the Veteran’s claims file.
2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA knee examination to determine the current nature and severity of her service connected left and right knee disabilities.  The examination should include all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner.  The examiner should report all manifestations related to this service connected disability.  The record and a copy of this Remand must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner.
a)  Pursuant to Correia, the examination should record the results of range of motion testing for pain on both active and passive motion and in weight bearing and non-weight bearing for BOTH knees.  If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so.
In recording the ranges of motion for the Veteran’s knees, the examiner should note whether, upon repetitive motion, there is any pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination of movement, and whether there is likely to be additional functional loss due to pain on use, weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination over time.  The examiner should also indicate whether the Veteran experiences additional functional loss during flare-ups of the service connected left knee disability.  If there is no pain, no limitation of motion, and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report.
b)  The examiner should also express an opinion concerning whether there would be additional functional impairment on repeated use or during flare-ups.  The examiner should assess the additional functional impairment on repeated use or during flare-ups in terms of the degree of additional range of motion loss.  If this is not feasible to determine without resort to speculation, the examiner must provide an explanation for why this is so.
The examiner must provide a complete rationale for any opinion expressed.
3. Following completion of the above, and a review of any additional evidence received, the RO should also undertake any other development it deems to be necessary, to include, if warranted, an addendum medical opinion which considers any newly received evidence.

References: § 5103
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v.