08-00 063, 08-00 063

Veteran served on active duty July 1979–January 1990 and appealed VA RO rating decisions from 2006 onward for service‑connected degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the lumbar spine and bilateral ankles.
Initial service connection and ratings: low back DJD 20% (effective July 6, 2005); bilateral ankle arthritis 10% (effective July 6, 2005); later separate right ankle 10% (effective March 7, 2011).
Veteran sought increased ratings; multiple Board remands (2011, 2014, 2016) and VA examinations were obtained, including private July 5, 2011 notes and VA exams in May 2011 and July 2016.
Key objective findings: severely limited lumbar flexion (e.g., 10–20 degrees forward flexion) but no unfavorable ankylosis or physician‑prescribed bed rest for IVDS; ankle plantar flexion reduced to about 10 degrees bilaterally on July 2016 exam with pain and functional loss.
Board concluded: lumbar spine rating increased to 40% (effective July 5, 2011) but not to higher than 40%; ankles increased to 20% each effective July 12, 2016; prior periods remain at 10% ankles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lumbar DJD warrants >40%	Veteran argued more severe limitation/IVDS justifies >40%	VA argued no unfavorable ankylosis or IVDS incapacitating episodes ≥6 weeks	Denied: no >40% (40% is highest warranted absent ankylosis or ≥6 weeks IVDS)
Whether left ankle warrants >10% before 7/12/2016	Veteran sought increased rating for greater limitation/function loss	VA relied on May 2011 exam showing only moderate limitation	Denied for period prior to 7/12/2016 (remains 10%)
Whether left ankle warrants higher rating from 7/12/2016	Veteran argued functional loss and pain justify higher rating	VA relied on July 2016 exam showing marked limitation (plantar flexion ~10°)	Granted 20% from 7/12/2016 (marked limitation)
Whether right ankle warrants parallel increases	Veteran sought increased rating for right ankle similarly	VA presented symmetrical exam findings supporting marked limitation as of July 2016	Granted 20% from 7/12/2016; prior to that remains 10%

Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (full grant of service connection for a condition is a final adjudication)
Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (notice requirements)
Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (VA must obtain relevant VA medical records)
Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (scope of relevant records)
Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (VA must obtain identified VA records even if not apparently relevant)
DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (Vet. App. 1995) (functional loss and flare‑ups must be considered for ROM ratings)
Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80 (Vet. App. 1997) (application of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45 considerations)
Lichtenfels v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 484 (Vet. App. 1991) (painful motion can equate to limitation of motion)
Thun v. Shinseki, 572 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (extraschedular referral standards)
Johnson v. McDonald, 762 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (consideration for extra‑schedular evaluation based on combined effects)