Citation Nr: 20028870 Decision Date: 04/24/20 Archive Date: 04/24/20 DOCKET NO. 13-29 224 DATE: April 24, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is denied. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for a left knee instability, to include whether the March 31, 2017 severance of service connection was proper, is denied. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for a left knee crepitation, to include whether the March 31, 2017 severance of service connection was proper, is denied. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee limitation of motion, to include whether the March 31, 2017 severance of service connection was proper, is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence does not establish that the Veteran’s cervical spine disability is due to his period of active duty service. 2. The evidence does not establish that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability is due to his period of active duty service. 3. The evidence does not establish that the Veteran’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is due to his period of active duty service. 4. The evidence of record indicates that, throughout the appeals period, the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss was manifested by hearing levels of no worse than Level II in the right ear and Level I in left ear. 5. During the pendency of the claim, service connection for left knee instability was severed in an unappealed January 2017 rating decision, effective March 31, 2017. 6. During the pendency of the claim, service connection for left knee crepitation was severed in an unappealed January 2017 rating decision, effective March 31, 2017. 7. During the pendency of the claim, service connection for left knee limitation of motion was severed in an unappealed January 2017 rating decision, effective March 31, 2017. 8. The evidence of record is not sufficient to show that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities prevent the Veteran from finding and following substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 2. The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 3. The criteria for service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 4. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.385, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.14, 4.25, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100. 5. The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for left knee instability, to include whether the March 31, 2017 severance of service connection was proper, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 501; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.400(o)(1). 6. The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for left knee crepitation, to include whether the March 31, 2017 severance of service connection was proper, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 501; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.400(o)(1). 7. The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for left knee limitation of motion, to include whether the March 31, 2017 severance of service connection was proper, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 501; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.400(o)(1). 8. The criteria for a TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 4.15, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served active duty in the United States Air Force from March 1978 to July 1988 and several periods of active and inactive training in the Air Force Reserve. In June 2015, the Board remanded the appeal for further development. Service Connection 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 pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be established for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Where a veteran served continuously for ninety (90) days or more during a period of war, or during peacetime service after December 31, 1946, and a disease enumerated by the regulations, such as arthritis, becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from the date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1133; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Service connection may also be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. 1. Service connection for a cervical spine disability The Veteran contends that his cervical spine disability is due to his period of service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran’s current medical records show disc deterioration of the cervical spine, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In a November 2015 VA opinion, the examiner stated that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s cervical spine disability is due to his period of service, to include the May 1995 in-service incident in which he injured his left knee. The examiner explained that degenerative changes in the intervertebral disc are an inevitable result of aging and are influenced by major and minor mechanical stresses to the cervical spine, including injury. The examiner stated that dehydration of the disc occurs naturally, allowing shrinkage, and protrusion of nuclear material through weakening support elements, annulus and posterior longitudinal ligaments. The examiner went on to explain that this dehydration of the disc leads to hardening and calcification with loss of disc resilience, ligamentous laxity provides a compensatory range of motion to the spine, and the facet joints tend to enlarge to better share the stress loads as the ligamentum flavum thickens in an attempt to stabilize the spine. Citing medical literature, the examiner reported that the disc loses elasticity and disc space height, which is indicated by narrowing of the intervertebral joint space on radiographic studies. The examiner noted that there is no Air Force Reserve Line of Duty determination issued by the military noted in the file nor indicated by the Veteran for this condition. The examiner went on to conclude that since there is no pre-existing disability in service or chronic disability as of 1993, the current condition was not diagnosed within a year from separation, there were two intercurrent injuries which did not occur during active duty times or result in a line of duty determination, the 1995 and 1998 reports were worker’s compensation injuries, and there is another etiology for the current cervical spine condition, the majority of the evidence does not support that it is at least as likely as not the current cervical spine disability is related to any incident or finding from service, and especially to the May 1995 incident. The examiner further concluded that, since the gait disturbance caused by the left knee condition is now only mild, the spondylosis is widespread throughout multiple regions of the spine, and spine spondylosis is a progressive disease in which there is another etiology for the disease process, it is unlikely the neck condition is caused by or aggravated to any degree by the left knee condition. After the review of the evidence, the Board finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish service connection for a cervical spine disability. The medical opinion of record concluded that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s cervical spine disability is related to his period of service, to include the May 1995 incident and the left knee condition. The opinion is thorough in its reasons and bases, and it is therefore highly probative. Thus, service connection for a cervical spine disability is not warranted. While the Veteran believes that his cervical spine disability was related to his period of service, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiology opinion on a cervical spine disability, as this is a complex medical matter. The Board reiterates that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against findings that his cervical spine disability was due to or the result of his active duty service. The Board has also considered presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) for arthritis and service connection based on a continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); however, the probative evidence does not indicate that the disability manifested within a year of separation of service or that it occurred continuously since discharge from service. Therefore, presumptive service connection and service connection based on continuity of symptomatology are not warranted. 2. Service connection for a lumbar spine disability The Veteran contends that his lumbar spine disability is due to his period of service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran’s current medical records show a current lumbar spine disability, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board notes that the June 2015 Board remand found the April 2011 VA opinion to be inadequate for the purposes of adjudicating the claim. Therefore, no further analysis of the opinion is necessary. In a November 2015 VA opinion, the examiner stated that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability is due to his period of service, to include the May 1995 in-service incident in which he injured his left knee. The examiner explained that spondylosis is a natural process of aging, is seen in 10% of individuals by the age of 25 years and in 95% by the age of 65 years. The examiner also noted that radiculopathy results from nerve root impingement and/or inflammation that has progressed enough to cause neurologic symptoms in the areas that are supplied by the affected nerve. Citing medical literature, the examiner stated that etiologies of the radiculopathy include disc or bony foraminal encroachments, tumors, and metabolic disorders. The examiner stated that the most likely etiology of the lumbar spine disability is encroachment on the nerve roots by the lumbar discs. The examiner noted that there is no Air Force Reserve Line of Duty determination issued by the military noted in the file nor indicated by the Veteran for this condition. The examiner went on to conclude that since there is no pre-existing disability in service or chronic disability as of 1993, the current condition was not diagnosed within a year from separation, there were two intercurrent injuries which did not occur during active duty times or result in a line of duty determination, the 1995 and 1998 reports were worker’s compensation injuries, and there is another etiology for the current lumbar spine condition, the majority of the evidence does not support that is it is at least as likely is not the current lumbar spine disability is related to any incident or finding from service, and especially to the May 1995 incident. The examiner further concluded that, since the gait disturbance caused by the left knee condition is now only mild, the spondylosis is widespread throughout multiple regions of the spine, and spine spondylosis is a progressive disease in which there is another etiology for the disease process, it is unlikely the back condition is caused by or aggravated to any degree by the left knee condition. After the review of the evidence, the Board finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish service connection for a lumbar spine disability. The medical opinion of record concluded that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability is related to his period of service, to include the May 1995 incident and the left knee condition. The opinion is thorough in its reasons and bases, and is therefore highly probative. Therefore, service connection for a lumbar spine disability is not warranted. While the Veteran believes that his lumbar spine disability was related to his period of service, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiology opinion on a lumbar spine disability, as this is a complex medical matter. The Board reiterates that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against findings that his lumbar spine disability was due to or the result of his active duty service. The Board has also considered presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) for arthritis and service connection based on a continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); however, the probative evidence does not indicate that the disability manifested within a year of separation of service or that it occurred continuously since discharge from service. Therefore, presumptive service connection and service connection based on continuity of symptomatology are not warranted. 3. Service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome The Veteran contends that his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is due to his period of service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran’s current medical records show bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In a November 2015 VA opinion, the examiner stated it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome was due to his period of active service. The examiner explained that carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a condition in which there is excessive pressure on the median nerve in the wrist with symptoms including numbness, tingling, weakness, or muscle damage in the hand and fingers. Citing medical literature, the examiner noted that etiological causes of CTS include repetitive wrist motion, vibratory hand tool use, hypothyroidism, trauma including fracture, cyst, rheumatoid arthritis, obesity, edema and infections. More than 50% of cases eventually require surgery. The examiner noted that there is no Air Force Reserve Line of Duty determination issued by the military noted in the file nor indicated by the Veteran for this condition. The examiner further noted that while the Veteran did work as a mechanic both during and after active duty, review of the file did not indicate an etiological attribution of the CTS by any treating professional. The examiner therefore concluded that, since there was no pre-existing disability or in-service complaint, diagnosis or treatment of a peripheral nerve disease, the 1993 Air Force Reserve examination did not indicate a chronic condition ongoing in military service, and the diagnosis of bilateral CTS was not made until some 20 years after separation from active duty military and not during work as a mechanic during active duty or during the post-military occupation, the majority of the evidence supports that it is not at least as likely as not that the bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is related to service. After the review of the evidence, the Board finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The medical opinion of record concluded that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is related to his period of active service. The opinion is thorough in its reasons and bases, and is therefore highly probative. Therefore, service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is not warranted. While the Veteran believes that his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome is related to his period of service, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiology opinion on bilateral CTS, as this is a complex medical matter. The Board reiterates that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against findings that his bilateral CTS disability was due to or the result of his active duty service. Increased Rating 4. An initial compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss The Veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss is such that a compensable rating is warranted. Evaluations of bilateral defective hearing range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of controlled speech discrimination tests together with the average hearing threshold level as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 cycles per second, with 11 auditory acuity levels designated from Level I for essentially normal acuity through Level XI for profound deafness. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. For VA purposes, impaired hearing will be considered a disability when the auditory threshold for any of the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; the auditory thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 decibels or greater; or speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. In addition to the hearing loss criteria above, when the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) are all 55 decibels or more, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIa [38 C.F.R. § 4.85], whichever results in the higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(a). When the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIa, whichever results in the higher numeral. That numeral will then be elevated to the next higher Roman numeral. Each ear will be evaluated separately. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86(b). Turning to the evidence, in an April 2011 VA examination, the audiologist reported the following puretone thresholds (in decibels): HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 15 10 65 55 45 LEFT 15 10 25 50 30 The examiner noted 94 percent word recognition for the right ear and 98 percent word recognition for the left ear. For functional impairment, the Veteran reported the frequent need for repetition, especially in the presence of background noise. The audiometric findings obtained in April 2011 are consistent with pure tone threshold averages of 44 decibels in the right ear with speech discrimination of 94 percent and pure tone threshold averages of 29 decibels in the left ear with speech discrimination of 98 percent. These clinical findings correlate to an auditory acuity numeric designation of a Level I hearing impairment for both ears. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII, these findings warrant the assignment of a noncompensable rating. In a November 2015 VA examination, the audiologist reported the following puretone thresholds (in decibels): HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 10 60 60 70 LEFT 10 10 20 45 35 The examiner noted 88 percent word recognition for the right ear and 100 percent word recognition for the left ear. The Veteran reported having difficulty understanding conversational speech, especially in adverse listening environments. The audiometric findings obtained in November 2015 are consistent with pure tone threshold averages of 50 decibels in the right ear with speech discrimination of 88 percent and pure tone threshold averages of 28 decibels in the left ear with speech discrimination of 100 percent. These clinical findings correlate to an auditory acuity numeric designation of a Level II hearing impairment for the right ear and a Level I hearing impairment for the left ear. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VII, these findings warrant the assignment of a noncompensable rating. After review of the evidence, the Board finds the Veteran’s hearing loss most closely approximates to a noncompensable disabling rating. The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and describe the impairment associated with his hearing loss. The Board finds these lay statements to be credible and consistent with the rating assigned. To the extent he argues his symptomatology is more severe, the Veteran’s statements must be weighed against the other evidence of the record. The assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment are derived by a mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations based on the audiology examination results. See Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). Consequently, the evidence does not support a compensable rating during the appeals period. 5. An initial rating in excess of 20 percent for a left knee instability, to include whether the March 31, 2017 severance of service connection was proper 6. An initial rating in excess of 20 percent for a left knee crepitation, to include whether the March 31, 2017 severance of service connection was proper 7. An initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee limitation of motion, to include whether the March 31, 2017 severance of service connection was proper The Veteran contends that his left knee disability is such that ratings in excess of 20 percent for left knee instability, 20 percent for a left knee crepitation, and 10 percent for a left knee limitation of motion are warranted. At the outset, the Board notes that, during the pendency of the claims for increased rating for left knee disabilities while they were in remand status from the June 2015 Board decision, in an October 2016 rating decision, the RO proposed severance of service connection for left knee disabilities. The RO based this proposal on evidence that the Veteran’s 1995 knee injury was a worker’s compensation injury that occurred while working as a civilian and not on inactive duty for training status for the Reserves. The RO went on to state that VA regulations note that technician status is not a type of qualifying service. In a January 2017 rating decision, the RO severed service connection for the Veteran’s left knee instability, left knee crepitation, and left knee limitation of motion, effective March 31, 2017. That final severance was not appealed. The propriety of these severances is a threshold question that must be resolved, and an appeal in these “propriety of severance” matters is implicitly part and parcel of the appeal within the broader context of the increased rating issues at hand; therefore, the “propriety of severance” issues will be addressed by the Board in the instant decision. VA’s regulatory provisions governing the severance of service connection awards provide that, subject to the limitations contained in 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.114 and 3.957, service connection may be severed only where the evidence establishes that the award of service connection was clearly and unmistakably erroneous, with the burden of proof being upon the government. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(d). When adjudicating claims for increased ratings, a retroactive increase or additional benefit will not be awarded after basic entitlement has been terminated, such as by severance of service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1). Turning to the evidence, a May 1995 Federal Employee Notice of Traumatic Injury and Claim for Continuation of Compensation form reports that the Veteran was injured at an Air Force Base while he was performing a spoiler drop check and installing a spoiler lock. The report noted that the Veteran’s left leg was injured. The claim was submitted to the Department of Labor as a workman’s compensation claim. In an April 2011 VA knee examination, the examiner determined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s knee condition was related to the Veteran’s in-service posterior cruciate ligament partial tear and his anterior cruciate ligament injury. The examiner reported that the Veteran received treatment for his knee condition which occurred in May 1995 where he injured his left knee when he was caught under the flap of an airplane wing. The examiner noted that in October 1996, the Veteran was declared unfit for world service due to his knee and subsequently discharged. In a November 2015 VA knee examination, the examiner stated that while the 1995 worker’s compensation injury did result in progression to degenerative joint disease, rendered the Veteran non-deployable, and resulted in AFRES discharge, this left knee injury was not during a time of active duty, and therefore the ratings both in 2011 and 2015 appear to be error because the injury did not occur during a period of active military duty. After review, the Board finds that the award of service connection for left knee disability in the August 2011 rating decision was clearly and unmistakably erroneous, as the evidence of record indicates that the Veteran was not on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive duty for training status. Rather, the evidence establishes that the Veteran’s injury occurred while working as a civilian at an Air Force base. Accordingly, the Board finds that restoration of service connection for left knee disability is not warranted, as the severance of service connection for such disability was proper. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(d). As service connection for left knee instability, crepitation and limitation of motion was severed, a retroactive increased rating for these disabilities may not be awarded. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1). The law clearly is dispositive as it prohibits a retroactive increase once basic entitlement has been terminated. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran lacks entitlement to increased ratings in excess of 20 percent for left knee instability, 20 percent for left knee crepitation and 10 percent for left knee limitation of motion under the law, and the claims must be denied as a matter of law. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). 8. TDIU The Veteran contends that his service-connected disabilities render him unable to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment. The Board finds that the evidence of record is not sufficient to show that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, individually or in aggregate, prevent the Veteran from finding and following substantially gainful employment. 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. 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. A threshold requirement for eligibility for a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) is that if there is only one such disability, it must be rated at 60 percent or more; if there are two or more disabilities, at least one disability must be rated at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability must bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. For the Veteran to prevail on a claim for a TDIU, the sole fact that the Veteran is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. The question is whether the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the Veteran can find employment. See Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). In determining whether the Veteran is entitled to a TDIU, consideration may be given to the Veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his or her age or the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. Marginal employment is not considered substantially gainful employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Substantially gainful employment means, essentially, that the work provides income above the poverty level established by the United States Department of Commerce, without benefit of protected family employment or a sheltered workshop. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Throughout the appeals period, the Veteran was service-connected for bilateral hearing loss at a noncompensable rating. Prior to March 31, 2017, the Veteran was service-connected for 20 percent for left knee instability, 20 percent for a left knee crepitation, and 10 percent for a left knee limitation of motion. However, as stated above, service connection for the left knee disabilities was found to be in error and has been severed. Therefore, the Board cannot consider the left knee disabilities in the TDIU analysis, as any additional benefit will not be awarded after basic entitlement has been terminated, such as by severance of service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1). Thus, the Veteran had a combined rating of 0 percent for the entire appeal period based solely on his service-connected bilateral hearing loss and has not met the schedular criteria for a TDIU. Although the Veteran does not meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU, an extraschedular total rating based on individual unemployability may still be assigned in the case of a Veteran who fails to meet the percentage requirements, but who is unemployable by reason of service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Turning to the evidence, in a June 2012 notice of disagreement, the Veteran stated that he now has a bi-venticular AICD pacemaker and is unemployable. In an April 2011 VA audiological examination, the Veteran reported the frequent need for repetition, especially in the presence of background noise. In a November 2015 VA audiological examination, the examiner reported functional impact in that the Veteran reported difficulty understanding conversational speech, especially in adverse listening environments. After review of the record, the Board finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish TDIU based on the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran did not meet the schedular criteria for a TDIU. Moreover, the evidence indicates that while the Veteran’s service-connected hearing loss had some functional impacts, it did not result in the inability to find and follow gainful employment; rather, the Veteran is unemployable due to non-service-related disabilities. Therefore, a TDIU is not warranted. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ford 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.