Citation Nr: 18142173 Decision Date: 10/16/18 Archive Date: 10/12/18 DOCKET NO. 94-47 677 DATE: October 16, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a combined disability rating greater than 80 percent from July 29, 1997, to August 9, 2001, is denied. Entitlement to a combined disability rating greater than 90 percent from August 9, 2001, to June 27, 2002, is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to March 13, 2007, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. From July 29, 1997, to August 9, 2001, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities were arteriosclerotic heart disease with history of chest pain, rated as 30 percent disabling; degenerative disc disease of L4-L5 with disc bulging and neuroforaminal narrowing with degenerative joint disease, rated as 20 percent disabling; tension headaches, rated as 30 percent disabling; residual of restrictive lung disease; rated as 10 percent disabling; mild cervical spine disc disease at C3-C4, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, left knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, right knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; tinnitus, rated as 10 percent disabling; and post-operative hemorrhoids, rated as non-compensably disabling. 2. From August 9, 2001, to June 27, 2002, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities were arteriosclerotic heart disease with history of chest pain, rated as 60 percent disabling; degenerative disc disease of L4-L5 with disc bulging and neuroforaminal narrowing with degenerative joint disease, rated as 20 percent disabling; tension headaches, rated as 30 percent disabling; residual of restrictive lung disease; rated as 10 percent disabling; mild cervical spine disc disease at C3-C4, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, left knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, right knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; tinnitus, rated as 10 percent disabling; and post-operative hemorrhoids, rated as non-compensably disabling. 3. For the period prior to March 13, 2007, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities did not preclude him from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The 80 percent combined rating for the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities from July 29, 1997, to August 9, 2001, was correctly calculated. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.25, 4.26 (2018). 2. The 90 percent combined rating for the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities from August 9, 2001, to June 27, 2002, was correctly calculated. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.25, 4.26 (2018). 3. For the entire period prior to March 13, 2007, the criteria for entitlement to a TDIU have not been met, to include on an extraschedular basis. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a) (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from April 1983 to September 1991. As an initial matter, at the time of the September 2017 Board remand the combined disability rating issues involved entitlement to a combined disability rating greater than 60 percent from July 29, 1997, to August 8, 2001, and greater than 80 percent from August 9, 2001, to September 23, 2008. As a result of the service connection and increased rating claims granted in that determination, however, the Veteran’s combined disability rating was increased to 80 percent for the period from July 29, 1997, to August 8, 2001, to 90 percent from August 9, 2001, to June 27, 2002, and 100 percent from June 27, 2002. As the Veteran is in receipt of the maximum rating for the period from June 27, 2002, any further consideration of a higher rating from that time is unnecessary and the issues have been adjudicated based on the ratings assigned for the time periods listed above in a September 2017 rating decision. As to the Veteran’s TDIU claim, the Board notes that as a result of the aforementioned September 2017 rating decision the Veteran is in receipt of a 100 percent disability rating from June 27, 2002. Of relevance, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008) held that there could be a situation where a veteran had a schedular total rating for a particular service-connected disability, and could establish a TDIU rating for another service-connected disability or disabilities in order to qualify for special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) by having an “additional” disability of 60 percent or more (“housebound” rate). See 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s); see also Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2011) (discussing VA’s “well-established” duty to maximize a claimant’s benefits). In this case, the Veteran has a 100 percent schedular rating from June 27, 2002, but is not in receipt of SMC benefits at the “housebound” rate for the period of the 100 percent rating. As such, the issue of entitlement to TDIU remains before the Board for the entire appellate time period. Specifically, the Board must determine whether some combination of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities render him unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation for the period prior to June 27, 2002, and whether a single disability from that date to March 13, 2007, meets the same criteria in order to qualify for statutory SMC benefits at the “housebound” rate. In addition, the Board notes that the Veteran is in receipt of TDIU benefits for a period beginning on March 13, 2007, based on the grant of such benefits in a June 2011 rating decision. The Board acknowledges that the RO limited the award of TDIU to September 23, 2009, based on the fact that at that time the Veteran was in receipt of a schedular 100 percent disability rating from that date. In a September 2012 determination the Board added the issue under the Court’s holding in Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) that a claim for increased rating can encompass a claim for TDIU and limited the appellate time period to entitlement to TDIU prior to March 13, 2007. As discussed above, as the Veteran is not in receipt of SMC at the housebound rate for the period from September 23, 2009, and based on the Court’s holding in Bradley the issue of whether a single service-connected disability alone could form the basis for an award of TDIU is potentially at issue. For the same reason as discussed below for the period from June 27, 2002, to March 13, 2007, there is no evidence that a single service-connected disability met the criteria for TDIU for the period from September 23, 2009. As such, the issue has been limited to that previously listed by the Board. Increased Rating 1. Entitlement to a combined disability rating greater than 80 percent from July 29, 1997, to August 9, 2001 2. Entitlement to a combined disability rating greater than 90 percent from August 9, 2001, to June 27, 2002 When there are two of more service-connected compensable disabilities, a combined rating will be made following the table and rules prescribed in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 3.323 (2018). Combined ratings are determined by using the Combined Ratings Table in Table I of 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. To use Table I, the disabilities are first arranged in the order of their severity, beginning with the greatest disability and then combined using Table I. The figures appearing in the space where the column and the row intersect represent the combined value of the two. This combined value is then converted to the nearest number divisible by 10. Combined values ending in 5 are adjusted upward. If there are more than two disabilities, the combined value of the first two disabilities is charted against the third disability using Table I. The same procedure is used if there are four or more disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.25(a) (2018). When a partial disability results from disease or injury of both arms or both legs, the ratings for the disabilities of the right and left sides will be combined as usual, and 10 percent of that value will be added, not combined, before proceeding with further combinations. The bilateral factor will be applied before other combinations are made. 38 C.F.R. § 4.26 (2018). For the entire period on appeal, the Veteran’s bilateral factor is based on his patellofemoral syndrome of the right and left knees, each rated at 10 percent. After the two ratings are combined, they yield a combined rating of 19 percent. Following the regulations set forth by 38 C.F.R. § 4.26, the bilateral factor of 1.9 results from multiplying 19 percent by 10 percent. After the 1.9 percent bilateral factor is added to 19 percent, it totals 20.9 percent, which is then rounded up to 21 percent. From July 29, 1997, to August 9, 2001, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities were arteriosclerotic heart disease with history of chest pain, rated as 30 percent disabling; degenerative disc disease of L4-L5 with disc bulging and neuroforaminal narrowing with degenerative joint disease, rated as 20 percent disabling; tension headaches, rated as 30 percent disabling; residual of restrictive lung disease; rated as 10 percent disabling; mild cervical spine disc disease at C3-C4, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, left knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, right knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; tinnitus, rated as 10 percent disabling; and post-operative hemorrhoids, rated as non-compensably disabling. The RO has calculated the combined rating as 80 percent for this period. Applying the above ratings to Table I, the first two disabilities of 30 percent and 30 percent yield a combined rating of 51. The 51 is combined with the 21 for the bilateral patellofemoral syndrome, yielding a combined rating of 61. The 61 is combined with the 20 percent rating for the low back disability, yielding a combined rating of 69. The 69 combined rating is combined with each of the remaining 10 percent ratings, yielding combined ratings of 72, 75, and finally 78. The combined 78 is rounded to a combined 80 percent disability rating. Therefore, the 80 percent combined rating assigned by the RO from July 29, 1997, to August 9, 2001, is correct. 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. From August 9, 2001, to June 27, 2002, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities were arteriosclerotic heart disease with history of chest pain, rated as 60 percent disabling; degenerative disc disease of L4-L5 with disc bulging and neuroforaminal narrowing with degenerative joint disease, rated as 20 percent disabling; tension headaches, rated as 30 percent disabling; residual of restrictive lung disease; rated as 10 percent disabling; mild cervical spine disc disease at C3-C4, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, left knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, right knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; tinnitus, rated as 10 percent disabling; and post-operative hemorrhoids, rated as non-compensably disabling. The RO calculated the combined rating as 90 percent. Applying the above ratings to Table I, the first two disabilities of 60 percent and 30 percent yield a combined rating of 72. The 72 is combined with the 21 for the bilateral patellofemoral syndrome, yielding a combined rating of 78. The 78 is combined with the 20 percent rating for the low back disability, yielding a combined rating of 82. The 82 combined rating is combined with each of the remaining 10 percent ratings, yielding combined ratings of 84, 86, and finally 87. The combined 87 is rounded to a combined 90 percent disability rating. Therefore, the 90 percent combined rating assigned by the RO from August 9, 2001, to June 27, 2002, is correct. 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. In sum, there is no legal basis on which a higher combined rating can be granted for either of the time periods in question. As the law and not the evidence is dispositive in this case, the claims must be denied. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). 3. Entitlement to TDIU prior to March 13, 2007 It is the established policy of VA that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (2018). A finding of total disability is appropriate “when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation.” 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340(a)(1), 4.15 (2018). Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, provided that if there is only one such disability, such disability shall be ratable as 60 percent or more and if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Where these percentage requirements are not met, entitlement to benefits on an extraschedular basis may be considered when the Veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities, and consideration is given to the Veteran’s background, including his employment and educational history. 38 C.F.R. §4.16(b). The Board does not have the authority to assign an extraschedular total disability rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability in the first instance. Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1 (2001). In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the Veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but it may not be given to his or her age or to any impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19 (2018). As noted above, the Board will limit its consideration to entitlement to TDIU prior March 13, 2007. During the relevant time period, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities were arteriosclerotic heart disease with history of chest pain, rated as 30 percent prior to August 9, 2001, and as 60 percent disabling from that date; degenerative disc disease of L4-L5 with disc bulging and neuroforaminal narrowing with degenerative joint disease, rated as 20 percent disabling; tension headaches, rated as 30 percent disabling; residual of restrictive lung disease; rated as 10 percent disabling; mild cervical spine disc disease at C3-C4, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, left knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; patellofemoral pain syndrome, right knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; tinnitus, rated as 10 percent disabling; and post-operative hemorrhoids, rated as non-compensably disabling. The combined rating is 80 percent for the relevant period prior to August 9, 2001, and as 90 percent disabling from that date. For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) Disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable; (2) Disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident; (3) Disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g. orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric; (4) Multiple injuries incurred in action; or (5) Multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. Id. The Board notes that for the period prior to August 9, 2001, the Veteran did not have a single disability rating of 40 percent or greater; however, his combined orthopedic disabilities combined to 40 percent and his overall rating of 80 percent met the schedular requirements. As such, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities met the percentage rating standards for TDIU for the entire appellate time period. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Board must now consider whether the evidence reflects that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities rendered him unemployable for the period prior to March 13, 2007. An August 1991 service treatment record documented a physical profile based on the Veteran’s low back disability that included no crawling, stooping, jumping, running, marching, or standing for long periods. He also was precluded from mandatory strenuous physical activity. In November 1991, the Veteran was noted to have tension headaches and dizziness secondary to stress and hyperventilation that the Veteran attributed to certain situations and stress on the job. A November 1991 VA examination report included normal orthopedic findings with minimal pain. A December 1991 letter from a private physician indicated that the Veteran was working in arc welding, but had experienced multiple episodes of shortness of breath, chest pain, abdominal pain, and nausea both during work and outside of work. The episodes lasted from a few seconds to 10 minutes. Testing showed minor lung scarring that was attributed to his work in arc welding. The physician advised the Veteran “that it would no longer be safe for him to continue welding as a career. Certainly not without protective respiratory equipment.” A March 1992 administrative decision determined that entitlement to TDIU was not warranted. The Veteran had a college degree. He had worked as a welder in service and a June 1991 physical evaluation board had determined he was fit to perform his duties. The Veteran had not worked since service, but could work based on the foregoing. In an April 1992 TDIU claim, the Veteran indicated that he had been looking for work since separating from service, but had been unsuccessful due to his illness incurred in service, including headaches, lung problems, and chest pains. A July 1992 Statement of the Case continued the prior denial of entitlement to TDIU on the same bases. An August 1993 VA examination for tinnitus indicated that the Veteran’s tinnitus was bilateral and periodic, occurring around loud noises and that in such circumstances the Veteran needed to remove himself from the environment. During an October 1994 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he continued to have serious problems with pain in the chest, knees, ankle, back, and neck. He also had headaches and was unable to stand or sit for extended periods. The neck and back pains caused trouble sleeping at night. A psychiatric evaluation included a diagnosis of anxiety disorder. The Veteran had symptoms of tension and shakiness that sometimes were associated with chest pain. The symptoms had increased since leaving service and that he had difficulty at times in class with feelings of restlessness and tension. The Veteran went to school at night and worked part time during the day as a security aid at a VA medical facility. During a neurological examination, the Veteran reported back pain radiating up to the neck that was associated with lifting. The Veteran also had headaches that caused irritability and affected his concentration at school. During a December 1995 VA respiratory examination, the Veteran reported a chronic cough and difficulty walking briskly for more than 100 feet. During a December 1995 VA audio examination, the Veteran described brief episodes of tinnitus associated with noisy environments. A May 1997 letter indicated that the Veteran had completed a social work internship for college at a local high school. During that time, the Veteran’s health problems seemed to sap his energy and his headaches caused him to leave the workplace occasionally. The Veteran, “persevered however, and did an adequate job. [The Veteran] had a positive attitude toward students and related to them well. He desires to work and should be given this opportunity. He is well prepared to enter the Social Work field.” Another May 1997 letter indicated that the Veteran had been employed as a work-study student providing security for various parking lots, mainly at night. He had worked from June 1992 to May 1997 and was an “outstanding worker” when not in pain. He had to leave work on multiple occasions due to headaches and back pain and missed work at times for the same reason. “However when he could work you could count on him 100 percent.” During his July 1997 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that he had not worked full time since service and had performed seasonal work managing a baseball field and two scorekeepers. He denied any other employment since service. The Veteran reported having graduated from college with a degree in social work, but he felt that he could not get a job in the field because he wanted to work with juveniles, but “If I can’t offer them 100 percent of me, then it’s no point in me being there. I don’t want to offer them the negative side of me because of my condition.” The Veteran reported daily headaches and that he only got relief from lying down or taking medication. During a June 1998 VA examination, the Veteran reported daily back pain with radiation into the legs. On examination, there was pain to palpation, but no muscle spasm. There was noted pain on forward flexion from 30 to 90 degrees. A June 1998 VA heart examination indicated that the Veteran had sharp chest pains that were particularly related to motion, standing, or lifting. The symptoms occurred 2 to 3 times per day. In a June 1998 VA neurological examination, the Veteran reported 3 to 4 daily headaches lasting 15 to 20 minutes that were aggravated by stress. In a September 1999 statement, the Veteran stated that he had gone to school and graduated with a social work degree and had been told that the government would find him a job. He had applied for jobs at VA medical facilities in several states, but had been given excuses and not hired. The Veteran’s claim for benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) included his reports of work history as a social worker, therapist / counselor at a community mental health facility, children outreach counselor, postal worker, and as a solder / welder. The counseling / social work positions had involved workweeks from 37.5 to 40 hours per week. The Veteran reported that his occupational performance was affected by short patience, heart disease, knee problems, arm and leg problems, tension headaches, metal fume fever, fibromyalgia, eye problems, forgetfulness, shortness of breath, panic attacks, sleep problems, and difficulties with the neck, mid-back, low back, and lower extremities. These problems caused issues with depression, tingling in the fingers, lifting limitations, sitting problems, standing problems, walking difficulties, and nervousness and stress. In a June 2002 application for TDIU, the Veteran indicated that he had worked 4 to 6 hours per week from September 1991 to May 1997 at a VA medical facility where he had earned $2000 per month and missed 1 week of work due to illness. Thereafter, the Veteran had worked in 2000 until March 2001 at a community mental health facility where he had not missed work due to illness and had made $7000 per month. For the remainder of 2001 and in 2002 the Veteran had worked in a position involving children outreach services. The Veteran had missed 3 months of work due to illness and made $2500 per month. In an August 2002 VA headache examination, the Veteran reported one headache a week due to stressful situations. They were 7 to 8 out of 10 on the pain scale and lasted for 2 hours. He had to find a place to relax and lie down. The Veteran denied photophobia or nausea. During a September 2003 Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that 2 months previously he had gotten a job as a care member working with the elderly. The job required extensive sitting and reading files, which was difficult for the Veteran due to a limited attention span. He also got headaches that required him to lie down on the floor of a bathroom or stretching out in his car. The Veteran denied any other paid positions since his graduation with a social work degree in 1997. In December 2004, it was noted that the Veteran experienced daily headaches that were aggravated by working in front of a computer. The headaches were not prostrating and intermittently associated with photophobia. During a February 2005 VA examination, the Veteran was noted to be working as a social worker. The Veteran was able to walk for 1 mile without stopping and walked without a limp. He could ascend and descend stairs, but tried to avoid doing so. Examination of the back and bilateral knees showed no evidence of atrophy or neurological deficits. Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine was to 50 degrees. The knees had motion from 5 to 125 degrees. The Veteran had intermittent atypical chest pain 2 to 3 times per week. Prior testing had shown excellent exercise tolerance. The Veteran reported shortness of breath after walking more than 1 mile or so, but pulmonary function testing was normal. In April 2006, during a VA examination the Veteran reported continued daily headaches that at time were associated with photophobia. He generally was able to work through the headaches, but did ask his supervisor to lie down for an hour or so. The Veteran remained independent of activities of daily living during his headaches. The Veteran had hemorrhoids every 2 to 3 weeks, without history of thrombosis or incontinence. VA and private treatment records document ongoing complaints of and treatment for headaches, shortness of breath, hemorrhoids, and pain in the back, neck, and knees. A March 2007 letter from the Veteran’s VA treating physician indicated that the Veteran had fibromyalgia and numbness in the arms and hands, which resulted in trouble staying in a seated position that resulted in severe fatigue when forced to do so for work. The symptoms had increased over the course of the past year. In a December 2007 TDIU claim, the Veteran indicated that he had worked from 2002 to 2007 at the County Office Serving the Aging where he had made $37000, presumably per year. An April 2008 confirmation of the Veteran’s employment indicated that he had worked at the County Office Serving the Aging from August 3, 2003, to March 12, 2007. His highest annual wage was $30907.21. No concessions had been made at work because the Veteran had not requested any accommodations. The Veteran had been terminated for poor job performance. During a March 2009 VA spine examination, the Veteran confirmed that he was terminated for “poor job performance.” Formal and informal examination of the Veteran’s spine was considered to be inconsistent. During a July 2009 VA spine examination, the Veteran reported that the effect of his spine disability on employment as a social worker would be that he would be unable to sit for the time necessary to perform the job duties. During an October 2010 VA knee examination, the Veteran reported that he had difficulty with his knees if he had to stand for more than 1 hour or walk more than a half mile. During his September 2011 Board hearing, the Veteran confirmed that he had been employed until 2007 as a social worker. In a February 2013 VA knee examination, the Veteran stated that he stopped working due to joint problems and difficulty concentrating. A June 2013 VA headache examination indicated that the Veteran’s headaches (that occurred 3 to 4 times per day and lasted about 20 minutes) did not impact his ability to work. A January 2016 VA medical opinion indicated that the severity of the Veteran’s heart disability would not prevent sedentary employment. The medical physician noted that in July 1992 the Veteran’s chiropractor found that the Veteran could continuously lift up to 10 pounds, could frequently lift from 10 to 20 pounds, could occasionally lift 20 to 50 pounds, and never could lift more than 50 pounds. He had the same weight limitations for carrying. The Veteran could use his hands and arms regularly for repetitive activities and could occasionally climb, bend, squat, kneel, crawl, and place his hands above shoulder level. The Veteran’s low back and headache disabilities would not preclude the Veteran from working in a light physical job. The Veteran could do an office job with his lung disability because such work would not aggravate the lung disability. Based on examinations showing a normal gait and other findings the Veteran’s knee disabilities were not so severe as to interfere with his walking. There was no evidence to suggest that the Veteran’s hemorrhoids would affect his ability to work. The Veteran’s herpes simplex resulted in occasional outbreaks of blistered in affected areas for 7 to 10 days, but would not affect the Veteran’s ability to work. Based on the foregoing, the Veteran’s disabilities individually or in combination would not prevent him from working in a sedentary type of job during the applicable time period. The Board concludes that an effective date for the award of TDIU prior to March 13, 2007, is not warranted. The evidence of record indicates that the Veteran was employed on a full-time basis as a social worker from August 2003 until March 13, 2007. In addition, the Veteran was employed full-time from 2000 to 2002 in other social work jobs. The Veteran was in college and employed in a work-study position from 1991 to 1997. Thus, the Veteran was employed full-time or in college while working part-time for the majority of the appellate time period. The evidence indicates that the Veteran required certain accommodations at times, such as being allowed to go to an isolated location during periods of headaches, but he has conceded that such needs were accommodated by his employers. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the Veteran’s employment could be considered marginal at any time on appeal. Marginal employment is not considered to be substantially gainful employment. Marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a veteran’s earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. Marginal employment may also be held to exist, on a facts-found basis (includes but is not limited to employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop), when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). In this case, the Veteran’s income exceeded the poverty threshold during the relevant time periods when he was employed full-time and out of school, there is nothing to suggest that he worked in a sheltered workshop, and the evidence demonstrates that he did not work in a family business. As to the times during the appellate period when the Veteran was unemployed (that is, after graduating from college and prior to finding employment and between his various jobs), there is nothing to suggest that the symptoms associated with his service-connected disabilities were more severe during the times when he was not working. Since the Veteran’s symptoms associated with his service-connected disabilities did not prevent him from fulfilling his job duties while employed, there is nothing to suggest that he could not have performed similar duties had he been employed during the time periods he was not. The Board recognizes that the January 2016 VA physician’s opinion concluded that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities would not have precluded sedentary employment for the period prior to March 13, 2007. With respect to the term “sedentary employment,” the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims recently stated in Withers v. Wilkie, 2018 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1054 (August 10, 2018), that the Board must sufficiently explain how it interpreted the examiners’ use of the term and how the concept of sedentary work figures into a veteran’s overall disability picture and vocational history. In this case, not only could the Veteran perform sedentary employment, in fact, he did perform such duties in his various social work positions in the period following his college graduation until March 13, 2007. The social work positions involved minimal, if any, physically-demanding job duties. The Veteran clearly was able to handle the job duties involved, based on his ongoing employment in the social work field for the majority of the appellate time period. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds no basis for granting entitlement to TDIU prior to March 13, 2007. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities had some effect on his occupational functioning for the period prior to March 13, 2007. However, the ratings assigned during that period recognize the industrial or commercial impairment resulting from his disorders. Nevertheless, for the reasons and bases set forth above, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding his service-connected disabilities (singly or in combination) were of such severity so as to preclude his participation in any form of substantially gainful employment prior to March 13, 2007. J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. J. Houbeck, Counsel