10-13 743, 10-13 743

Veteran served on active duty Nov 1942–Oct 1945 and has a service‑connected degenerative lumbar spine condition with a 20% rating.
Appeal from an Oct 2009 RO rating decision denying an evaluation in excess of 20% for lumbar spine; the Veteran sought higher evaluation.
Veteran had a DRO hearing in Nov 2011 (he withdrew his Board hearing request); case was previously remanded by the Board in Jan 2016 and a February 2016 VA examination was obtained.
The Feb 2016 examination did not include the joint testing required by the Court in Correia (active/passive range of motion; weight‑bearing and nonweight‑bearing testing), and the examiner noted the Veteran was unwilling to complete certain testing.
Because Correia requires specific testing to document pain on motion, the Board remanded for a new VA examination that includes active and passive ROM, weight‑bearing and nonweight‑bearing measurements, ankylosis determination, duration of incapacitating episodes, neurological signs, and objective evidence of pain/fatigability/weakness, with rationale.
The Board ordered further development and instructed the AOJ to furnish a supplemental statement of the case if benefits are not granted; remand is a preliminary order, not a final merits decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entitlement to a rating in excess of 20% for degenerative lumbar spine is warranted	Veteran argues his lumbar spine disability merits a higher evaluation than 20% based on symptomatology and prior exam findings	VA/RO relies on the current record and prior rating decision; the existing Feb 2016 exam is inadequate under Correia because required testing was not performed	Remanded: the Board ordered a new VA exam compliant with Correia to properly assess ROM, pain with active/passive motion, weight‑bearing vs nonweight‑bearing, neurological signs, ankylosis, and incapacitating episode duration; no final merits decision made

Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (claimant may submit additional evidence after remand; remand requires opportunity to respond)