Citation Nr: 19152307 Decision Date: 07/09/19 Archive Date: 07/08/19 DOCKET NO. 17-62 467A DATE: July 9, 2019 ORDER Service connection for headaches is denied. Service connection for hypertension (claimed as high blood pressure) is denied. For the increased disability rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015, a rating in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. For the increased disability rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015, a rating in excess of 40 percent for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine is denied. For the initial disability rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017, a rating in excess of 40 percent for right lower extremity sciatica is denied. For the initial disability rating period on appeal from April 6, 2017, a rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity sciatica is denied. For the initial disability rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017, a rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity sciatica is denied. For the initial disability rating period on appeal from April 6, 2017, a rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity sciatica is denied. For the initial disability rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015, a rating in excess of 20 percent for a right lower extremity femoral nerve disability is denied. An earlier effective date than September 8, 2015 for the grant of service connection for right lower extremity sciatica is denied. An earlier effective date than September 8, 2015 for the grant of service connection for left lower extremity sciatica is denied. An earlier effective date than September 8, 2015 for the grant of service connection for a right lower extremity femoral nerve disability is denied. REMANDED An earlier effective date than April 6, 2017 for the grant of service connection for a left lower extremity femoral nerve disability is remanded. A total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran is not currently diagnosed with a headache disability. 2. The Veteran is not currently diagnosed with hypertension. 3. For the increased rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015, PTSD has not been manifested by total occupational and social impairment. 4. For the increased rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015, the service-connected back disability did not more nearly approximate ankylosis of the thoracolumbar spine or incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during any 12-month period. 5. For the initial rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017, the right lower extremity sciatica has been manifested by no more than moderately severe incomplete paralysis of the affected nerve. 6. For the initial rating period on appeal from April 6, 2017, the right lower extremity sciatica has been manifested by no more than moderate incomplete paralysis of the affected nerve. 7. For the initial rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017, the left lower extremity sciatica has been manifested by no more than mild incomplete paralysis of the affected nerve. 8. For the initial rating period on appeal from April 6, 2017, the left lower extremity sciatica has been manifested by no more than moderate incomplete paralysis of the affected nerve. 9. For the initial rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015, the right lower extremity femoral nerve disability has been manifested by no more than moderate incomplete paralysis of the affected nerve. 10. The Veteran’s claim for service connection for right lower extremity sciatica, left lower extremity sciatica, and a right lower extremity femoral nerve disability was received by VA on September 8, 2015. 11. No application for service connection for right lower extremity sciatica, left lower extremity sciatica, and a right lower extremity femoral nerve disability was received prior to September 8, 2015. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a headache disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. 2. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. 3. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD have not been met or more nearly approximated for the period from September 8, 2015. 38 C.F.R. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 4. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine have not been met or more nearly approximated for the period from September 8, 2015. 38 C.F.R. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5237, 5243. 5. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for right lower extremity sciatica have not been met or more nearly approximated for the period from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017. 38 C.F.R. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. 6. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity sciatica have not been met or more nearly approximated for the period from April 6, 2017. 38 C.F.R. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. 7. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity sciatica have not been met or more nearly approximated for the period from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017. 38 C.F.R. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. 8. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity sciatica have not been met or more nearly approximated for the period from April 6, 2017. 38 C.F.R. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. 9. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a right lower extremity femoral nerve disability have not been met or more nearly approximated for the period from September 8, 2015. 38 C.F.R. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8526. 10. The criteria for an effective date prior to September 8, 2015 for the award of service connection for right lower extremity sciatica have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103A, 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.155, 3.159, 3.326(a), 3.400. 11. The criteria for an effective date prior to September 8, 2015 for the award of service connection for left lower extremity sciatica have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103A, 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.155, 3.159, 3.326(a), 3.400. 12. The criteria for an effective date prior to September 8, 2015 for the award of service connection for a right lower extremity femoral nerve disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103A, 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.155, 3.159, 3.326(a), 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran, who is the appellant, had active service from July 1989 to July 1992. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision, which granted service connection for right lower extremity sciatica, and assigned a 40 percent rating, left lower extremity sciatica, and assigned a 10 percent rating, and a right lower extremity femoral nerve disability, and assigned a 20 percent rating, each effective September 8, 2015 (date of claim). The October 2015 rating decision also granted a higher 40 percent rating for the back disability, granted a higher 70 percent rating for PTSD, and denied service connection for headaches and high blood pressure. A December 2015 rating decision denied TDIU. A November 2017 rating decision assigned a 20 percent rating for both the right and left lower extremity sciatica, each effective April 6, 2017, creating the “staged” initial rating issues on appeal. In an October 2016 statement, the Veteran asserted disagreement with the “effective date” of the 40 percent stage for the back disability and the 70 percent stage for PTSD. The Board finds that, notwithstanding the use of the term “effective date” in the context of requesting a higher rating for the service connected back disability and PTSD, the Veteran has not raised an additional issue of actual earlier effective date. The October 2015 rating decision reflects the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) increased the disability rating for the back disability from 20 percent to 40 percent and increased the disability rating for PTSD from 50 percent to 70 percent, each effective September 8, 2015 (date of claim for increase). As discussed below, even the question of whether the Veteran may be entitled to a 20 percent, or higher, disability rating for the back disability and a 50 percent, or higher, disability rating for the PTSD disability during the one year period prior to the date of claim for increase is part of the increased rating issues that are on appeal. Because an increased rating appeal had already been perfected in December 2017 for the one year period prior to the date of claim (prior to assignment of the 40 percent stage for the back disability and the 70 percent stage of the increased disability rating for PTSD), the Veteran’s characterization of the issues in October 2016 as one for an earlier effective date did not constitute an actual effective date appeal. Although the Veteran used the term “effective date” to express disagreement with the date of assignment of the 40 percent “stage” of the back rating and the 70 percent “stage” of the PTSD rating, the characterization of the appeal as one of effective date does not convert it into an actual effective date appeal, as opposed to simply an appeal for a higher rating. Furthermore, because all the questions to be decided by the perfected increased disability rating appeal – namely, a weighing of the lay and medical evidence to determine whether an increased disability rating for the back and PTSD disabilities one year prior to September 8, 2015, and from September 8, 2015, is warranted – there remains no question of effective date for rating that is not fully adjudicated in the increased disability rating adjudication of the 40 percent rating stage of the back disability and the 70 percent rating stage for PTSD. For these reasons, it was not legally possible for the Veteran to appeal an “effective date” for the 40 percent rating for the back disability and the 70 percent rating for PTSD. The Board finds that the duties to notify and assist have been fulfilled. Neither the Veteran nor the evidence has raised any specific contentions regarding the duties to notify or assist in this case. Service Connection for Headaches Service Connection for Hypertension Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in service disease or injury and the current disability. With any claim for service connection (under any theory of entitlement), it is necessary for a current disability to be present. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007) (service connection may be warranted if there was a disability present at any point during the claim period, even if it is not currently present); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013) (when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability immediately prior to a veteran filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency). The Veteran generally seeks service connection for headaches and hypertension. See September 2015 VA Form 21-526EZ. After a review of all the lay and medical evidence of record, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran is not currently diagnosed with a headache disability or hypertension. A July 2014 VA treatment record shows the Veteran reported experiencing a headache. Numerous VA treatment records also reflect the Veteran denied headaches. See March 2014, February 2017, March 2018, and March 2019 VA treatment records. In addition, while a June 2014 VA treatment record reflects the Veteran reported having hypertension, no examiner has diagnosed a hypertension disability. Rather, VA examiners have specifically assessed that the Veteran did not have hypertension. See May 2014, August 2014 VA treatment records. Although the VA treatment records discussed above show the Veteran complained of headaches and hypertension, the same records do not show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a headache disability or hypertension. As the weight of the evidence demonstrates the Veteran is not currently diagnosed with headache disability or hypertension, the claim for service connection for must be denied. Rating PTSD Disability ratings are determined by applying a schedule of ratings that is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R., Part 4. Each disability must be viewed in relation to its history and the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition should be emphasized. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. In general, all disabilities, including those arising from a single disease entity, are rated separately, and all disability ratings are then combined in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. Pyramiding, the rating of the same disability, or the same manifestation of a disability, under different diagnostic codes, is to be avoided when rating a veteran’s service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. It is possible for a veteran to have separate and distinct manifestations from the same injury which would permit rating under several diagnostic codes; however, the critical element in permitting the assignment of several ratings under various diagnostic codes is that none of the symptomatology for any one of the conditions is duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition. Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994); Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 107 (2017) (holding that 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 prohibits compensating a veteran twice for the same symptoms or functional impairment). PTSD is rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. Pertinent in this case, the General Rating Formula provides that a 50 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped, speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short and long term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. 38 C.F.R § 4.130. A 70 percent rating will be assigned for occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. The criteria for a 70 percent rating are met if there are deficiencies in most of the areas of work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, and mood. Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1, 11-14 (2001). A 100 percent schedular rating contemplates total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The use of the term “such as” in the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve as examples of the type and degree of symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). It is not required to find the presence of all, most, or even some, of the enumerated symptoms recited for particular ratings. Id. The use of the phrase “such symptoms as,” followed by a list of examples, provides guidance as to the severity of the symptoms contemplated for each rating, in addition to permitting consideration of other symptoms particular to each veteran and disability, and the effect of those symptoms on his/her social and work situation. In Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 117 (2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that VA “intended the General Rating Formula to provide a regulatory framework for placing veterans on a disability spectrum based upon their objectively observable symptoms.” The Federal Circuit stated that “a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration.” It was further noted that “§ 4.130 requires not only the presence of certain symptoms but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas.” The Veteran contends generally that the service-connected PTSD has been manifested by more severe symptoms and impairment than contemplated by the 70 percent disability assigned. See October 2016 notice of disagreement. After a review of the lay and medical evidence, the Board finds that, for the rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015, the frequency, severity, and duration the psychiatric symptoms do not more nearly approximate total occupational and social impairment as described for a higher 100 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 9411. For the rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015, the record does not indicate total occupational and social impairment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. A review of the relevant lay and medical evidence, including VA treatment records, the October 2015, April 2017, and May 2019 VA examination reports, and lay statements, does not reveal that the Veteran has experienced total occupational and social impairment. The October 2015, April 2017, and May 2019 VA examination reports reflect that each VA examiner specifically opined that PTSD manifested as occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. The May 2019 VA examiner assessed orientation to time, person, and place, the April 2017 VA examiner did not discern suicidal or homicidal thoughts, and the October 2015 VA examiner assessed full orientation and alertness. March 2018 VA treatment records reflect the Veteran drove a motorcycle and had a girlfriend. November 2017 VA treatment records reflect the Veteran reported having friends, that he liked to “tinker” with cars and motorcycles as a hobby, and that he lived with his mother. For these reasons, the weight of the competent and probative lay and medical evidence of record is against a rating in excess of 70 for service-connected PTSD for the period from September 8, 2015. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. Rating Degenerative Disc Disease of the Lumbar Spine For disabilities of the musculoskeletal system, the Board also considers whether a higher disability rating is warranted on the basis of functional loss due to pain or due to weakness, fatigability, incoordination, or pain on movement of a joint under 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 204-07 (1995). Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part that becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. Id. Functional loss contemplates the inability of the body to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination and endurance, and must be manifested by adequate evidence of disabling pathology, especially when it is due to pain. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40. The factors of disability affecting joints are reduction of normal excursion of movements in different planes, weakened movement, excess fatigability, swelling and pain on movement. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45. Additionally, painful motion is an important factor of disability; and joints that are actually painful, unstable, or malaligned, due to healed injury, should be entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. Although pain may cause a functional loss, pain itself does not constitute functional loss. Pain must affect some aspect of “the normal working movements of the body” such as “excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance,” in order to constitute functional loss. See Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). Under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, a 40 percent rating is assigned for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine at 30 degrees or less; favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine; or unfavorable ankylosis of the entire cervical spine. A 50 percent disability rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 100 percent rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Under Diagnostic Code 5243 (Intervertebral Disc Syndrome), a 40 percent disability rating is assigned with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 4 weeks but less than 6 weeks during the past 12 months; and a maximum 60 percent disability rating is assigned with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months. The Veteran contends generally that the service-connected back disability has been manifested by more severe symptoms and impairment than contemplated by the 40 percent disability assigned. See October 2016 notice of disagreement. Neither the Veteran nor the representative have indicated why a rating in excess of 40 percent is warranted. After a review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board also finds that, for the rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015, the service-connected back disability did not more nearly approximate ankylosis of the thoracolumbar spine or incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during any 12 month period. First, the evidence of record reflects no ankylosis of the spine, and a disability rating in excess of 40 percent is not warranted on that basis. See April 2017, October 2015 VA examination reports. Second, as to incapacitating episodes due to IVDS, none of the evidence received by VA has conveyed that the Veteran ever had incapacitating episodes with a total duration of six weeks or more during any 12 month period on appeal. See VA treatment records. The October 2015 and April 2017 VA examination reports reflect the VA examiners did not discern incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least one week during a 12 month period. As such, a disability rating in excess of 40 percent due to incapacitating episodes is not warranted. For these reasons, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence of record is against a finding that a disability rating in excess of 40 percent is warranted at any point during the rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. Rating Right Lower Extremity Sciatica Rating Left Lower Extremity Sciatica The Veteran contends generally that the service-connected right and left lower extremity sciatica have been manifested by more severe symptoms and impairment than contemplated by the initial disability ratings assigned. See October 2016 notice of disagreement. Neither the Veteran nor the representative have indicated why higher initial ratings are warranted. Rating from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017 The sciatica of the right and left lower extremity is currently rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520, which provides for rating paralysis of the sciatic nerve, manifested by complete paralysis ratable at 80 percent; severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy ratable at 60 percent; moderately severe incomplete paralysis ratable at 40 percent; moderate incomplete paralysis ratable at 20 percent; and mild incomplete paralysis ratable at 10 percent. For the initial period on appeal from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017, the right lower extremity sciatica has been rated as 40 percent disabling, and the left lower extremity has been rated as 10 percent disabling. After a review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that, for the period on appeal from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for the right lower extremity sciatica and a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the left lower extremity sciatica have not been met or more nearly approximated under Diagnostic Code 8520. As to the right lower extremity sciatica, throughout the rating period, the nerve disability has not been manifested by severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy. Specifically, the October 2015 VA examiner did not discern severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy. The October 2015 VA examiner assessed that the Veteran did not have muscle atrophy. In addition, no examiner has assessed incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy, and the Veteran has not alleged otherwise. See VA treatment records. Based on the above, the Board finds that a disability rating in excess of 40 percent is not warranted under Diagnostic Code 8520 for the right lower extremity sciatica for the period from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. As to the left lower extremity sciatica, throughout the initial rating period on appeal from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017, the left lower extremity nerve disability has not been manifested by moderate incomplete paralysis. The October 2015 VA examiner specially assessed that the left lower extremity sciatica was, at worst, mild in severity. The October 2015 VA examiner also assessed that the left lower extremity nerve disability did not manifest as pain or numbness. In addition, no examiner has assessed moderate incomplete paralysis, and the Veteran has not alleged otherwise. See VA treatment records. Based on the above, the Board finds that a disability rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted under Diagnostic Code 8520 for the left lower extremity sciatica for the period from September 8, 2015 to April 6, 2017. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. Rating from April 6, 2017 For the initial period on appeal from April 6, 2017, the right and left lower extremity sciatica have each been rated as 20 percent disabling. After a review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that, for the period on appeal from April 6, 2017, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the right and left lower extremity sciatica have not been met or more nearly approximated under Diagnostic Code 8520. Throughout the rating period, the nerve disabilities have not been manifested by moderately severe incomplete paralysis. Specifically, findings from the April 2017 VA examination, and history and findings in the numerous VA treatment records, as well as the Veteran’s lay statements, are consistent with a 20 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 8520 for the symptoms and level of impairment actually demonstrated by the right and left sciatic nerve disability. Diagnostic Code 8520 warrants a 40 percent rating for moderately severe incomplete paralysis. In this case, as noted at the April 2017 VA examination, the VA examiner specifically assessed moderate right and left lower extremity sciatica. In addition, no examiner has assessed moderately severe incomplete paralysis of the affected nerves. See VA treatment records. Based on the above, the Board finds that disability ratings in excess of 20 percent are not warranted under Diagnostic Code 8520 for both the right and left sciatic nerve disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. Rating Right Lower Extremity Femoral Nerve The right lower extremity femoral nerve disability is currently rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8526, which provides for rating paralysis of the femoral nerve, manifested by complete paralysis ratable at 40 percent; severe incomplete paralysis ratable at 30 percent; moderate incomplete paralysis ratable at 20 percent; and mild incomplete paralysis ratable at 10 percent. For the initial period on appeal from September 8, 2015, the right lower extremity femoral nerve disability has been rated as 20 percent disabling. After a review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that, for the period on appeal from September 8, 2015, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the right lower extremity femoral nerve disability has not been met or more nearly approximated under Diagnostic Code 8526. Throughout the rating period, the nerve disability has not been manifested by severe incomplete paralysis, and the Veteran has not alleged otherwise. See October 2015, April 2017 VA examination reports; VA treatment records. Based on the above, the Board finds that a disability rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted under Diagnostic Code 8526 for the right femoral nerve disability. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. Extraschedular Referral Consideration The Board finds that neither the Veteran nor the record has raised the question of extraschedular rating or referral for an extraschedular rating adjudication under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) for any period for the rating issues on appeal. See Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008); Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (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); Yancy v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 484, 494 (2016), citing Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473, 499 (2006), aff’d, 226 Fed. Appx. 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that when 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) is not “specifically sought by the claimant nor reasonably raised by the facts found by the Board, the Board is not required to discuss whether referral is warranted”); Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217 (2005) (stating that “issues not raised on appeal are considered abandoned”). Effective Date for Right Lower Extremity Sciatica Effective Date for Left Lower Extremity Sciatica Effective Date for Right Lower Extremity Femoral Nerve An award of direct service connection will be effective on the day following separation from active military service or the date on which entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year of separation from service. Otherwise, except as specifically provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award for pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after a final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. A “claim” is defined as a formal or informal communication, in writing, requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit and VA is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.155(a) (2017); see also Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 198-200 (1992). Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.155, any communication or action indicating intent to apply for one or more VA benefits, including statements from a veteran’s duly authorized representative, may be considered an informal claim. Such an informal claim must identify the benefit sought. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) defines application as a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. See also Rodriguez v. West, 189 F.3d. 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The date of receipt of a claim is the date on which a claim, information, or evidence is received by VA38 C.F.R. § 3.1(r). The Veteran contends generally that the AOJ should have assigned an earlier effective date than September 8, 2015 for the grant of service connection for right lower extremity sciatica, left lower extremity sciatica, and a right lower extremity femoral nerve disability. See October 2016 notice of disagreement. Neither the Veteran nor the representative have indicated why an earlier effective date than September 8, 2015 is warranted. The Board finds that there was no correspondence received by VA prior to September 8, 2015 that can be construed as an informal or formal claim for service connection for the right and left lower extremity disabilities. As such, the evidence establishes no date of claim that is earlier than the date VA received the claim, in September 2015. Although entitlement to the benefit may have arisen (i.e., the nerve disabilities may have arisen or begun) earlier than September 8, 2015, the claim for service connection was not received until September 8, 2015. The effective date will be the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Because the claim for service connection was not received until September 8, 2015, and the effective date can be no earlier than the claim for service connection, an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for the nerve disabilities is legally precluded. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (where the law is dispositive, the claim must be denied due to a lack of legal merit). For these reasons, the Board concludes that an effective date prior to September 8, 2015 for service connection is not warranted as a matter of law. REASONS FOR REMAND Effective Date for Left Lower Extremity Femoral Nerve In December 2017, the Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) to the November 2017 rating decision’s assignment of a 20 percent initial rating, effective April 6, 2017 for the left lower extremity femoral nerve disability. In the notice of disagreement, the Veteran specifically disagreed with the effective date. See December 2017 notice of disagreement (via VA Form 21-0958). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has directed that, where a veteran has submitted a timely NOD with an adverse decision and the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has not subsequently issued a statement of the case (SOC) addressing the issue, the Board should remand the issue to the AOJ for issuance of a SOC. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-241 (1999). TDIU The Veteran has contended that he is unable to work due to the service-connected degenerative disc disease. See October 2015 VA examination report. The Veteran also reported that back pain affected the ability to sit, stand, and walk. Notwithstanding these assertations, various VA treatment records reflect the Veteran drove a motorcycle and enjoyed working on cars. In addition, various VA treatment records reflect a 2018 motorcycle accident in which the Veteran lost consciousness for several minutes, broke both the legs, and “sustained a number of other orthopedic injuries.” See June 2019 VA treatment record. To date, the Veteran has not completed and submitted a TDIU claim (VA Form 21-8940) and, the Board has discovered inconsistencies pursuant to the TDIU issue on appeal. On remand, the AOJ should give the Veteran the opportunity to provide an accurate VA Form 21-8940 detailing the complete work and education history, income earned, to include highest gross earnings per month, and any other information regarding employment or attempts to obtain employment. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete and submit a VA Form 21-8940 (Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability), that responds to all the information requested on that form, to include a complete and accurate work and education history, and exact dates of employment, names of employers, and income information, including the highest gross earnings per month. The Veteran is notified that failure to complete and return the requested TDIU claim form will result in denial of the claim per 38 C.F.R. § 3.158. 2. Issue a SOC addressing the issue of an earlier effective date than April 6, 2017 for the grant of service connection for the left lower extremity femoral nerve. The issue will not be returned to the Board for appellate consideration following the issuance of the SOC unless the appeal is perfected. 3. After all development has been completed, the AOJ should readjudicate the TDIU issue on appeal. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Tenney, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.