13-16 874, 13-16 874

Veteran served active duty Nov 1989–Feb 2010 and appealed an April 2010 RO rating decision for service‑connected lumbar spine IVDS and degenerative arthritis.
Board previously granted a 10% rating prior to March 29, 2013, and remanded the issue of an initial rating in excess of 10% for periods before and after that date for further development.
VA provided a May 2017 examination; the examiner noted veteran-reported flare‑ups after standing but did not elicit or document the severity, frequency, duration, precipitating/alleviating factors, or specific additional functional loss during flares.
The May 2017 examiner declined to estimate functional loss during flares as speculative and did not complete or justify Correia‑style testing (pain on active/passive motion, weight‑bearing/nonweight‑bearing).
The Board found the examination inadequate under Sharp and Correia and remanded for additional development: obtain outstanding treatment records, provide a new VA exam that elicits detailed flare information and performs/justifies Correia testing, and re‑adjudicate after compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of VA examination re: flare‑ups and functional loss	Veteran reported flare‑ups causing additional limitation; examiner should elicit and estimate flare‑related functional loss	Examiner declined to opine because exam not conducted during a flare and claimed opinion would be speculative	Remand — exam inadequate under Sharp; examiner must obtain veteran’s description of flares and estimate functional loss or explain why not possible
Correia testing (pain on active/passive, weight‑bearing/nonweight‑bearing)	Veteran’s lumbar condition requires Correia‑style testing to capture pain‑related ROM loss	Examiner said such testing could not/should not be performed but failed to justify medically	Remand — examiner must address Correia testing and give supporting explanation if testing is not medically appropriate
Duty to obtain and associate outstanding VA treatment records	Veteran’s records may bear on severity and flares and must be associated	RO had not associated all records	Remand — AOJ must obtain and associate records or document unavailability and notify Veteran

Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (Vet. App.) (VA exam must address functional effects of flare‑ups and explain inability to do so)
Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (Vet. App.) (requirement to test pain on active/passive motion in weight‑bearing and nonweight‑bearing for musculoskeletal exams)
Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir.) (downstream elements such as rating/effective date require separate NOD to preserve appellate status)
Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (Vet. App.) (duty to comply with Board remand directives)
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (Vet. App.) (Veteran may submit additional evidence during remand development)