Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee degenerative joint disease is remanded.

Citation Nr: 26001437 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 16-58 287 DATE: January 30, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee degenerative joint disease is remanded. Entitlement to a compensable rating for left knee limitation of extension is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to October 5, 2021 for lateral instability of the left knee is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent from October 5, 2021 for patellar instability of the left knee is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from January 1982 to November 2005. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the Board at a hearing held by the undersigned in February 2020. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Thereafter, the Board remanded these matters in May 2020, March 2021, and February 2022 for further development. In a February 2023 decision, the Board denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee degenerative joint disease, a compensable rating for left knee limitation of extension, and a rating in excess of 20 percent for left knee meniscal tear from August 22, 2022. In the February 2023 decision, the Board also awarded a 10 percent rating for left knee lateral instability prior to October 5, 2021 and a 20 percent rating for left knee patellar instability from October 5, 2021. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a November 2023 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) vacating the portion of the Board's February 2023 decision that denied entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee degenerative joint disease, a compensable rating for left knee limitation of extension, a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee lateral instability prior to October 5, 2021, and a rating in excess of 20 percent for left knee patellar instability from October 5, 2021. The Court remanded these matters for further action in compliance with the JMPR. The JMPR specifically indicated that the Veteran was not challenging the part of the Board's decision that denied a rating in excess of 20 percent for left knee meniscal tear from August 22, 2022. Therefore, that portion of the left knee rating is no longer on appeal. Subsequently, the Board remanded the appeal in April 2024 and June 2025 for further development. 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee degenerative joint disease is remanded. 2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for left knee limitation of extension is remanded. 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent prior to October 5, 2021 for lateral instability of the left knee is remanded. ? 4. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent from October 5, 2021 for patellar instability of the left knee is remanded. The Board finds that the claims must be remanded for additional development as there has not been substantial compliance with the mandates of the June 2025 remand order. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that where the remand orders of the Board are not complied with, the Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance). In June 2025, the Board remanded the claims to specifically obtain an opinion from a VA examiner to, "provide an estimate or estimates of the Veteran's left knee extension and flexion for the period on appeal upon initial range of motion, with repeated use over time, and during flare-ups without considering the use of medication for her left knee disability" in accordance with Ingram v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 130 (2025). A VA examiner provided an opinion in July 2025. A review of the opinion illustrates the VA examiner provided estimates of the Veteran's flexion upon initial range of motion, with repeated use over time, and during flare-ups. Regarding the Veteran's extension, the VA examiner provided estimates of the Veteran's range of extension only upon initial range of motion. The VA examiner provided no estimates for extension upon repeated use or during flare-ups. Furthermore, the VA examiner did not explain why estimates could be provided with repeated use over time and during flare-ups for flexion but not for extension. As the June 2025 opinion does not substantially comply with the June 2025 remand order, the claims must be remanded for an additional VA opinion. See Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 271. In addition, following the issuance of the September 5, 2025 supplemental statement of the case, VA added additional medical evidence on October 3, 2025 to the Veteran's file. Pertinent evidence is initially reviewed by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). Additional pertinent evidence that becomes available after a supplemental statement of the case but prior to certification to the Board is to be addressed in an additional supplemental statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37(a). After certification to the Board, a waiver of AOJ initial review of such evidence should be requested from the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1305(c). An exception is when the Board grants the benefit being sought in full. Id. In the Veteran's case, the additional VA evidence is pertinent to the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected left knee. VA added the additional evidence to the file on October 3, 2025, and VA certified the appeal to the Board on October 6, 2025. As the pertinent evidence became available after the September 2025 supplemental statement of the case, but prior to the appeal being certified to the Board, the appeal must be remanded to the AOJ to furnish the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(a) to address all additional evidence after the September 2025 supplemental statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 19.31. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any updated VA treatment records from December 2025 to the present. 2. After completing the development requested in item 1, obtain an addendum opinion from the July 2025 VA examiner, if available, or another appropriate qualified clinician if the July VA examiner is not available. An examination, including via telehealth, should only be completed if the clinician determines one is needed to respond to the questions asked. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner should address the following: Utilizing the Veteran's medical records and lay reports concerning the history of her left knee symptoms and impairment, including the information contained in the January 2016, August 2020, June 2021, August 2022, June 2024, and July 2025 knee VA examination reports, provide an estimate or estimates of the Veteran's left knee extension for the period on appeal with repeated use over time and during flare-ups without considering the use of medication for her left knee disability. In other words, the findings should be made using the Veteran's baseline level of disability without consideration of the beneficial effects of medication. If estimates cannot be provided for the Veteran's extension with repeated use over time or during flare-ups, please explain why estimates could be provided for the Veteran's flexion with repeated use over time and during flare-ups but not extension in the July 2025 opinion. A complete rationale must be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement without resorting to mere 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). (Continued on the next page) ? 3. Readjudicate the Veteran's left knee increased rating claims in light of all the evidence of record, in particular any evidence added to the record since the September 2025 supplemental statement of the case. If any benefit on appeal remains denied, a supplemental statement of the case must be provided to the Veteran and her representative. After the Veteran and her representative have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Breitbach, 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.