09-18 715, 09-18 715

Veteran served Oct 1983–Oct 2007 and appealed a RO rating of 10% for service‑connected right hip bursitis with degenerative joint disease.
VA granted service connection for pes planus on remand (30%, effective Nov 1, 2007); that issue is not before the Board.
Veteran reported daily right hip pain, limited motion, altered gait, difficulty with stairs/ladder, and flare‑ups; testified at a 2012 hearing.
VA examinations: July 2009 showed flexion 90°, extension 10° with painful motion; August 2014 showed flexion 90° (pain at 60°), extension 15° (pain at 5°), abduction 20° (pain at 15°), tenderness, normal strength, and flare‑ups limiting function.
VA assigned 10% under DC 5252/5003 for painful motion; Board found evidence of pain and functional loss but not limitation of flexion to 30° or other findings requiring a higher schedular rating.
Board considered extraschedular and TDIU theories and declined to refer or remand: schedular criteria found adequate; Veteran was employed so TDIU remand not required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entitlement to >10% for right hip disability is warranted	Right hip pain, limited ROM, flare‑ups, altered gait, functional impairment justify >10%	Medical exams and records do not show ROM or other criteria meeting higher schedular ratings; 10% adequately accounts for painful motion	Denied — evidence does not approximate criteria for 20% or higher
Whether VA examinations were inadequate for rating during flare‑ups	August 2014 examiner could not quantify ROM loss during flare‑ups; plaintiff argues remand/clarification needed	Examiner fully reported findings and reasonably declined speculative estimates; report adequate	Denied — exam adequate under Jones; speculative estimates not required
Whether an extraschedular rating is warranted	Plaintiff’s symptoms and functional limits may be exceptional and justify extraschedular evaluation	Ratings schedule contemplates functional loss including pain, fatigability, and interference; no unusual or exceptional picture shown	Denied — schedular criteria adequately describe disability (Thun test failed)
Whether remand needed for TDIU consideration	Functional limitations from hip may support unemployability	Veteran reported current employment; no requirement to remand for TDIU opinion	No remand required for TDIU (Rice)

DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995) (painful use of a joint must be considered as functional loss)
Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (criteria for adequacy of medical examination in VA duty to assist analysis)
Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007) (VA examination adequacy standards)
Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2010) (examiner not required to speculate beyond medical basis)
Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011) (pain on motion is limiting only if it causes functional loss of working movement)
Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008) (three‑part test for extraschedular ratings)
Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488 (2010) (duty to ensure claimant can present evidence at hearing)
Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) (no automatic TDIU referral where veteran reports current employment)
Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993) (appellate review may proceed when VCAA duties satisfied)
Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204 (1994) (Board generally considers only factors in rating criteria)
Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991) (Board may consider all relevant provisions regardless of whether raised)