Citation Nr: 18150560 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 15-05 824 DATE: November 15, 2018 ORDER A rating in excess of 20 percent for spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from November 1989 to April 1990 and October 1990 to June 1991. 2. Throughout the entire appeal period, the lumbar spine disability has been manifested by subjective complaints of pain; objective findings include an abnormal range of motion but no ankylosis. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103(a), 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5238 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Lumbosacral spine disabilities are rated under the General Rating Formula for Rating Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (General Rating Formula). 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DCs 5237-5243. Intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) is rated under the Formula for Rating IVDS Based on Incapacitating Episodes (IVDS Formula), whichever method results in the higher rating when all disabilities are combined under 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. The Veteran has been rated under DC 5238 and the Board will consider all relevant diagnostic codes. A rating in excess of 20 percent will be warranted when the objective medical evidence shows the following: • forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine 30 degrees or less (40 percent); • favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine (40 percent); • incapacitating episodes of IVDS having a total duration of at least 4 weeks but less than 6 weeks during the past 12 months (40 percent). The Veteran contends that his lumbar spine disability is more severe than what is contemplated by the currently-assigned 20 percent rating under DC 5238 for spinal stenosis. In a March 2016 VA examination, he reported constant aching and throbbing pain in his back and he subjectively rated his pain at a seven out of 10. The pain radiated to his lower extremities and caused numbness in his legs and feet. He had trouble with running, prolonged sitting or standing, bending over, twisting, and lifting heavy objects. The Veteran also reported that he experienced flare-ups. Upon review of the record, the medical evidence does not support a rating in excess of 20 percent. Specifically, VA examinations dated in January 2014 and March 2016 indicated forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 50 degrees with pain. The March 2016 examination also noted forward flexion to 40 degrees after repetitive use. As forward flexion was not limited to 30 degrees or less, the medical evidence does not support a higher rating on this basis. Next, as a certain range of motion has been shown, the medical evidence does not support a higher rating based on ankylosis. Moreover, the evidence did not show ankylosis of the spine in either examination. Therefore, a higher rating on this basis is not shown in the medical evidence. Next, both examiners noted that the Veteran had IVDS of the thoracolumbar spine, but he did not have any episodes of acute signs of symptoms due to IVDS that required bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician in the past twelve months. As such, his medical disability picture is best embodied in the criteria for the currently-assigned 20 percent rating. Additionally, the August 2016 examination noted that the Veteran experiences pain or other symptoms due to radiculopathy. However, he is already service-connected for bilateral radiculopathy of the lower extremities. There are no other neurological symptoms related to the spine that have not been considered. In addition, the clinical records have been reviewed but do not reflect symptoms consistent with a higher rating. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s lay statements that his disability is worse. While he is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses, Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994), he is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of this disorder according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran’s spine disability has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined him during the current appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the examination reports and other clinical evidence) directly address the criteria under which this disability is evaluated. Moreover, as the examiner has the requisite medical expertise to render a medical opinion regarding the degree of impairment caused by the disability and had sufficient facts and data on which to base the conclusion, the Board affords the medical opinion great probative value. As such, these records are more probative than the Veteran’s subjective complaints of increased symptomatology. In sum, after a careful review of the evidence of record, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable and the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Kokolas, Associate Counsel