BVA Case 23-6781: Back

Parties'Arguments The appellant first argues that the Board erred in relying on the January 2023 VA examination report to deny higher ratings for his right knee disabilities.

Next,the appellant asserts that the Board failed to ensure substantial compliance with its June 2022 remand because the January 2023 VA examiner only provided range of motion results in active and passive motion and did not provide range of motion results during weight-bearing or nonweight-bearing.

Finally,the appellant argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its decision in four respects:(1)The Board did not define the subjective terms slight, moderate, or severe under the pre-2021 version of DC 5257 for recurrent subluxation or lateral instability and failed to consider his reports of knee buckling from March 2015, id.

at 453-56); (3)the Board failed to consider whether a retrospective medical opinion was necessary to evaluate evidence of right knee flare-ups,particularly in light of three prior inadequate examination reports, id.

at 13-15;and (4) the lack of any reasons or bases for finding the duty to assist satisfied and substantial compliance with remand instructions frustrates judicial review of these issues, id.

He asks the Court to reverse the Board's implicit findings that VA satisfied its duty to assist and that there was substantial compliance with the June 2022 Board remand,or alternatively to determine that judicial review is frustrated,and to remand the matters for readjudication.

For his part,the Secretary argues that the Court should affirm that part of the Board decision that denied entitlement to a separate rating for a right tibia fracture because the Board's decision is not clearly erroneous and is supported by adequate reasons or bases.

and nonweight-bearing [range of motion]testing results was reasonably raised by the record and the Board erred by failing to address it.