Citation Nr: 18143086 Decision Date: 10/18/18 Archive Date: 10/17/18 DOCKET NO. 10-38 081 DATE: October 18, 2018 ORDER The claim of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied. The claim of entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for left shoulder impingement is denied. The claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for a right shoulder scar is denied. The claim of entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is granted, subject to the criteria applicable to the payment of monetary benefits. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Erectile dysfunction has not been present during the period of the claim. 2. The Veteran’s left shoulder impingement was not productive of limitation of motion of the minor arm to 25 degrees from the side, malunion of the humerus, recurrent dislocations of the left arm at the scapulohumeral joint, fibrous union of the minor humerus, false flail joint, flail shoulder, or impairment of the clavicle or scapula. 3. The Veteran’s right shoulder scar is not deep and nonlinear with an area of at least 39 square centimeters, superficial and nonlinear with an area of at least 929 square centimeters, unstable, or painful. 4. The evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities render him unable to obtain or maintain a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2018). 2. The criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for left shoulder impingement have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.1-4.14, 4.40-4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5257-5263 (2018). 3. The criteria for a compensable rating for a right shoulder scar have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7801, 7802, 7804, 7805 (2018). 4. The criteria for establishing entitlement to TDIU benefits have been met.38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.340, 3.341, 4.16 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Army from February 1985 to August 1985. He had honorable active duty service in the United States Air Force from March 2002 to July 2003 and October 2006 to May 2008. In October 2014, the Veteran testified before the Board at a Travel Board hearing. In May 2018, the Board informed the Veteran that the Veterans Law Judge he testified before was no longer employed at the Board and offered him the opportunity to testify at another hearing. The Veteran did not request another hearing within the allotted 30 days. As such, the Board may proceed with appellate review. In January 2015, the Board remanded the case for further development. The case has since been returned for appellate review The Board notes that the issue of entitlement to an increased rating for the lumbar spine disorder was most recently before the Board in February 2016, when it was remanded for additional development. It appears that the issue remains in appellate status and has not been returned to the Board. Therefore, the issue will be addressed in a later decision. Duties to Notify and Assist Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Burden of Proof Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction. Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if preexisting such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. 1110, 1131 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a) (2018). In general, service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Service connection requires a finding of the existence of a current disability and a determination of a relationship between that disability and an injury or disease incurred in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309, 314 (1993); see also Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Court has held that the requirement for service connection that a current disability be present is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary’s adjudication of the claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The Board notes that the cornerstone of any VA disability compensation claim is the presence of a current diagnosed disability. The Veteran asserts service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to his service-connected low back disorder. However, the record does not show that the Veteran was diagnosed with erectile dysfunction. During the January 2009 VA examination, the Veteran denied erectile dysfunction. The May 2014 VA examiner noted that the Veteran’s service-connected lumbar spine disorder did not result in any neurologic abnormalities. At his October 2014 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his lumbar spine disorder caused intimacy problems. Thereafter, the Veteran was provided a VA examination in March 2015. He reported that he was not being treated for erectile dysfunction and that he was able to get an erection and ejaculate. He explained that when he was asked about intimacy he was describing his back pain. The examiner concluded that there was no objective evidence of erectile dysfunction. Moreover, a review of his lumbar spine disorder revealed that the levels affected did not include the neurological centers for sexual function. Therefore, there was no neurological basis for involvement of the function due to the service-connected back disorder. In sum, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence indicates the Veteran has not satisfied the clinical criteria necessary to establish a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction at any time throughout the pendency of his claim. As the Veteran has not shown a current disability for which service connection can be granted, the claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction must be denied. Since the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) regarding reasonable doubt are not applicable. Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) and are intended to represent the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Disabilities must be reviewed in relation to their history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Other applicable, general policy considerations are: interpreting reports of examination in light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability, 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 ; resolving any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability in favor of the claimant, 38 C.F.R. § 4.3; where there is a questions as to which of two evaluations apply, assigning a higher of the two where the disability pictures more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating, 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 ; and, evaluating functional impairment on the basis of lack of usefulness, and the effects of the disability upon the person’s ordinary activity, 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). A claimant may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability that might result in different levels of compensation from the time the increased rating claim was filed until a final decision is made. Thus, separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found - a practice known as “staged” ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or inflammation in parts of the system, to perform normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination and endurance. The functional loss may be due to absence of part or all of the necessary bones, joints and muscles, or associated structures, or to deformity, adhesions, defective innervation, or other pathology, or may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as disabled. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 (2017); see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.45, 4.59 (2017). Although pain may be a cause or manifestation of functional loss, limitation of motion due to pain is not necessarily rated at the same level as functional loss where motion is impeded. See Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). 2. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for left shoulder impingement. The Veteran’s left shoulder disorder is rated 20 percent disabling pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5201-5203. Hyphenated diagnostic codes are used when a rating under one diagnostic code requires use of an additional diagnostic code to identify the basis for the evaluation assigned; the additional code is shown after the hyphen. 38 C.F.R. § 4.27 (2018). The rating criteria for evaluating disabilities of the shoulder distinguish between the major (dominant) extremity and the minor (non-dominant) extremity. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.69. Because the record on appeal establishes that the Veteran is right-handed, the criteria for rating disabilities of the minor extremity are for application. Under Diagnostic Code 5201, a 20 percent rating is warranted for limitation of motion of the minor arm at shoulder level or for limitation of motion of the minor arm to midway between the side and shoulder level. A maximum 30 percent rating is assigned for limitation of motion of the minor arm to 25 degrees from the side. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5201. Under Diagnostic Code 5202 for impairment of the humerus in the minor arm, a 20 percent rating is warranted when there is malunion with moderate deformity or malunion with marked deformity. Also, under Diagnostic Code 5202, for recurrent dislocations of the minor arm at the scapulohumeral joint, a 20 percent rating is warranted for infrequent episodes, and guarding of movement only at shoulder level or for frequent episodes and guarding of all arm movements. A 40 percent rating is warranted for fibrous union of the minor humerus; a 50 percent rating is warranted for nonunion (false flail joint) of the minor humerus; and a 70 percent rating is warranted for loss of head of the minor humerus (flail shoulder). 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5202. Under Diagnostic Code 5203 for impairment of the clavicle or scapula, a 10 percent rating is warranted for malunion of the minor joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5203. A 20 percent rating is warranted for nonunion with loose movement or dislocation of the minor joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5203. For VA compensation purposes, normal range of motion for the shoulder is 180 degrees of forward flexion, 180 degrees of abduction, and 90 degrees of external and internal rotation. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate I. The Board has reviewed the evidence of record, including the VA examination reports, VA treatment records, and the Veteran’s lay statements. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that the Veteran is not entitled to a rating in excess of 20 percent for his left shoulder disorder at any point during the appeal period. With regard to Diagnostic Code 5201, the evidence does not show limitation of motion of the minor arm to 25 degrees from the side. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5201. The January 2009 VA examination report included active and passive range of motion findings with forward flexion to 170 degrees, with pain onset at 160 degrees; abduction to 140 degrees, with pain onset at 130 degrees; external rotation to 45 degrees, with pain throughout; and internal rotation to 60 degrees, with pain onset at 50 degrees. Repetitive testing did not reveal any additional loss of motion. The Board considered whether a higher or separate rating is warranted under another diagnostic code, specifically Diagnostic Codes 5202 and 5203. However, the January 2009 and March 2015 VA examinations did not reveal any evidence of malunion of the humerus, recurrent dislocations of the left arm at the scapulohumeral joint, fibrous union of the minor humerus, false flail joint, flail shoulder, or impairment of the clavicle or scapula. The Board has also considered the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, and the holdings in DeLuca. However, a rating in excess of 20 percent for the Veteran’s left shoulder disorder is not warranted on the basis of functional loss due to pain in this case, as the Veteran’s symptoms are supported by pathology consistent with the assigned 20 percent rating, and no higher. In this regard, the Board observes that the Veteran complained of pain throughout the period; however, the effect of the pain in the Veteran’s left shoulder is contemplated in the currently assigned 20 percent disability rating. The Veteran’s complaints do not, when viewed in conjunction with the medical evidence, tend to establish weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination to the degree that would warrant an increased evaluation. The Court has held that pain alone does not constitute functional loss under VA regulations that evaluate disabilities based upon loss of motion. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran’s left shoulder disorder does not warrant a disability rating in excess of 20 percent at any point during the period on appeal. Since the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) regarding reasonable doubt are not applicable. 3. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right shoulder scar. The Veteran’s right shoulder scar is currently rated as noncompensable under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802. Diagnostic Code 7802 provides the rating criteria for burn scars or scars due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are superficial and nonlinear, and that involve an area of 144 square inches (929 square centimeters) or greater, which warrant a 10 percent evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802. A superficial scar is one not associated with underlying soft tissue damage. Id. at Note (1). Under Diagnostic Code 7804, a 10 percent rating is warranted for one or two scars that are unstable or painful. Id. A 20 percent rating is warranted for three to four scars that are unstable or painful, and a 30 percent rating is warranted for five or more scars that are unstable or painful. Id. An unstable scar is defined as one where, for any reason, there is frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar. Id. at Note (1). If one or more scars are both unstable and painful, the rating criteria provide that 10 percent is to be added to the evaluation that is based on the total number of unstable or painful scars. Id. at Note (2). Diagnostic Code 7804 also specifically notes that scars rated under this code may also receive an evaluation under Diagnostic Codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7805. Id. at Note (3). The Veteran’s right shoulder scar is not on the head, face, or neck; therefore, Diagnostic Code 7800 is not applicable. Diagnostic Code 7801 provides the rating criteria for burn scars or scars due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are deep and nonlinear, with an area or areas of at least 6 square inches (39 square centimeters) but less than 12 square inches (77 square centimeters) warrants a 10 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7801. A deep scar is one associated with underlying tissue damage. Id. At Note (1). Diagnostic Code 7805 provides rating criteria for any disabling effects of other scars (including linear scars), and other effects of scars rated under Diagnostic Codes 7800, 7801, 7802, and 7804 not considered in a rating provided under Diagnostic Codes 7800-7804 are to be rated under an appropriate diagnostic code. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7805. Upon review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that a compensable rating for the Veteran’s right shoulder scar is not warranted at any time during the appeal period. The September 2014 VA examination report indicated that the Veteran’s right shoulder scar was non-linear and measured 5 cm (centimeters) x 1 cm. The scar was not deep, unstable, or painful. The approximate total area of the scar was five square centimeters. The examiner found that the scar did not result in limitation of function. The examiner described the scar as a slightly hypopigmented horizontal scar. The March 2015 VA examination report indicated that his right shoulder scar was not painful or unstable. It was a linear scar and measured 5 cm x 0.1 cm. The right shoulder scar did not result in limitation of function. Given the above, the Veteran is not entitled to a compensable rating for his right shoulder scar. The competent and objective medical evidence does not show that the scar is deep and nonlinear with an area of at least 39 square centimeters, superficial and nonlinear with an area of at least 929 square centimeters, unstable, painful, or that it results in limitation of function. Accordingly, the right shoulder scar is appropriately rated as noncompensable. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7801, 7802, 7804, and 7805. Consideration has also been given to assigning a staged rating; however, at no time during the period in question has the disability warranted a compensable disability evaluation. See Hart, 21 Vet. App. at 505. The preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of an initial compensable disability rating for the right shoulder scar. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable, and it must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56 (1990). 4. TDIU A TDIU may be assigned when the schedular rating for service-connected disabilities is less than 100 percent when it is found that the service-connected disabilities are sufficient to produce unemployability without regard to advancing age, provided that, if there is only one such disability, it is ratable at 60 percent or more, or, if there are two or more disabilities, there is at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more and additional disabilities to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16 (a) (2018). Throughout the period on appeal, service connection has been in effect for left shoulder impingement, rated as 20 percent disabling; lumbar strain with degenerative arthritis, rated as 20 percent disabling from May 16, 2008, to February 21, 2011, 40 percent disabling from February 22, 2011 to August 23, 2011, and 20 percent disabling thereafter; right shoulder impingement, rated as 10 percent disabling; cervical spine strain, rated as 10 percent disabling; migraine headaches, rated as 10 percent disabling; left lower extremity radiculopathy, rated as 10 percent disabling; right lower extremity radiculopathy, rated as 10 percent disabling; and right shoulder scar, low back scar, and stomach scar, each rated as noncompensable. As noted above, the schedular criteria for TDIU is met if there are two or more disabilities and at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more and additional disabilities to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a)(2018). For purposes of establishing one 40 percent rating in combination, disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident will be considered as one disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a)(2) (2018). In this regard, the Board notes that the medical evidence clearly shows the Veteran’s service-connected radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities were caused by his service-connected lumbar spine disorder. For the purpose of establishing entitlement to TDIU, the Veteran’s lumbar spine disorder and radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities, are considered to be a single disability because they share a common etiology. These disabilities result from a common etiology and are rated at 40 percent beginning on July 16, 2009. His combined rating beginning on July 16, 2009, is 70 percent or more. As such, the Veteran has satisfied the schedular criteria for a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 for the period beginning on July 16, 2009. In June 2012, the Social Security Administration (SSA) decision found that the Veteran was disabled due to his back disorder since October 1, 2010. SSA records showed that he worked as an operator for a mining company named DuPont from 1995 to 2010, with work as a packaging and shipping operator from 1995 to 2001, a dry mill operator from 2001 to 2003, and a wet mill operator from 2003 to October 2010. For the duration of his employment at DuPont, he worked 12 hours per day and four days per week. As a packaging and shipping operator, he operated a forklift and loaded/unloaded trucks with pallets of bagged sand. He also cleaned the dry mill, swept and shoveled sand, drove a bobcat case, washed cases, repaired pipe leaks, and loaded bins of sand. As a dry mill operator, he loaded sand into hoppers, cleaned screens, monitored hoppers, inspected the sand, loaded sand into feeders, maintained hoppers, and repaired pipes, cracks, holes, and clogs. As a wet mill operator, he used a bulldozer to push ramps and dredge ponds for sand. He also moved anchors for the wet mill, performed repairs on the lines and ramps, lifted pipes weighing 150 lbs., and carried equipment weighing 25 to 50 lbs. Most of his work day was spent sitting when he worked as an operator. From November 2007 to March 2013, the Veteran worked as an assistant basketball coach at a middle school. He was not physically involved in the coaching and mostly directed the students. He stated that he received special help from others and worked irregular hours or took frequent breaks. He was employed in this position on a seasonal basis and worked from October to January, for which he received between $2,400 to $2,900 each season. July 2014 and August 2014 questionnaires indicated that the Veteran resigned and another coach was hired in his place. SSA records also included the Veteran’s statements regarding his difficulty standing in the shower, standing in the kitchen, bending, reaching to get items from cabinets, shopping, sitting for prolonged periods, lifting, and entering and exiting cars due to his lumbar spine disorder. At the time of the February 2009 VA examination, the Veteran was employed fulltime as a heavy equipment operator. He was given limitations by his private doctor secondary to his back disorder. In February 2014, the Veteran reported that he worked 16-40 hours per week at DuPont. The March 2014 VA examiner stated that the Veteran’s service-connected lumbar spine disorder should not preclude very light duty or sedentary employment. The Veteran’s lumbar spine caused significant limitation of motion and pain. Therefore, strenuous physical activity was limited and he was unable to do prolonged standing/sitting because they would likely require special provisions to be able to move around in the work environment. At the October 2014 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his first job was working at the steel plant. He completed mostly heavy lifting and mechanical type of work. He testified that he was previously self-employed on a part time basis remodeling homes. The March 2015 VA examination report documented the Veteran’s report of constant pain in his lower back. Physical examination of the lumbar spine revealed decreased range of motion, interference with standing, and pain with lifting. The examiner concluded that his lumbar spine disorder impacted his ability to work. According to the Veteran, he had to do light duty in the last one to two years at work instead of working as a heavy equipment operator. The Veteran reported that he experienced bilateral shoulder pain when he lifted his arms to a certain height. He stated that his cervical spine was manifested by swelling and tension in his neck which caused his headaches. The examiner found that his bilateral shoulder disorder and cervical spine disorder did not impact his ability to work. The Veteran submitted a June 2018 private vocational assessment completed by A. C., CRC. He described significant painful shoulders, numbness and pain in his low back, throbbing and numbness due to his radiculopathy, severe intermittent cervical spine pain, and daily migraines. His neck pain impacted his ability to complete tasks requiring flexion of the neck. His migraines resulted in a significant decrease in activity. His lower extremity radiculopathy made it difficult to stand or walk for extended periods. The Veteran stated that the pain medications caused sleepiness and that one time he almost ran over an object with the lawn mower and during another incident he accidentally cut his hand with sharp objects. The Veteran also reported trouble sleeping due to his pain, which caused him to feel fatigued during the day. His physical limitations included reaching overhead, lifting/carrying a maximum of 10 lbs., sitting a maximum of 30 minutes, standing a maximum of 15 minutes, and walking a maximum of two blocks. The vocational expert also noted that the Veteran graduated from high school in 1981 and did not have a college degree or any specialty certifications or licenses. His work as a heavy equipment operator was classified at the medium exertional level, although the Veteran reported lifting and carrying requirements within the very heavy exertional level. The Veteran reported that sitting for extended periods of time exacerbated his bilateral shoulder, neck, and low back pain. It was noted that he transitioned to light duty part-time work at DuPont from 2008 to October 2010 and that since 2011, the Veteran earned below the poverty level. The examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran was unable to secure and follow substantially gainful employment since 2010 due to his physical conditions caused by his service-connected lumbar spine disorder, bilateral shoulder disorder, cervical spine disorder, low back disorder, lower extremity radiculopathy, and migraines. Based on the foregoing, and resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the service-connected lumbar spine disorder, bilateral shoulder disorder, cervical spine disorder, low back disorder, lower extremity radiculopathy, and migraines rendered him unable to maintain substantially gainful employment consistent with his education and occupational background. The VA examiners stated that the Veteran’s service connected disorders did not preclude very light or sedentary employment. However, the Veteran’s work history consisted entirely of jobs as a heavy equipment operator. While it appears that he was able to do some light duty work for the last few years of his employment with DuPont, the evidence of records shows that the Veteran had significant difficulty sitting for prolonged periods. Furthermore, his highest level of education completed was high school and he did not have any additional training. Moreover, any sedentary employment would be further limited due to the drowsiness from his pain medications. In sum, the Board is satisfied that the service-connected disabilities have been so severe as to render the Veteran unable to maintain any form of substantially gainful employment consistent with his education and occupational background. Accordingly, a TDIU is warranted. The Board notes that the evidence of record is unclear as to when the Veteran was no longer engaged in substantially gainful employment. As noted above, the Veteran satisfied the schedular criteria for a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 for the period beginning on July 16, 2009. Prior to that date, the Veteran was engaged in substantial gainful employment. Therefore, a TDIU prior to that date is not warranted. The SSA found the Veteran to be disabled as of October 1, 2010. The Veteran’s statements and the private vocational expert indicated that the Veteran stopped working as an operator in October 2010. However, the vocational expert stated that his income was below the poverty level since 2011. The Board will not set an effective date for the grant of TDIU so that the Veteran will have the opportunity to present evidence and argument on this question when the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) sets an effective date. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. N. Nolley, Associate Counsel