Citation Nr: 21002388 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 20-06 578 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of January 30, 2009, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for depression, not otherwise specified (NOS), is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for a lumbar spine disability (previously characterized as discogenic and osteoarthritis changes with large disc bulges, L4-L-5 and L5-S1), is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus, is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for parotid gland neoplasm, is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for allergic rhinitis, is granted. Entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for chronic sinusitis, is granted. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to an initial rating of 50 percent, but no higher, for depression prior to August 14, 2019, is granted. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for depression beginning August 14, 2019, is denied. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for parotid gland neoplasm is denied. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for allergic rhinitis is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy (discogenic and osteoarthritis) prior to March 29, 2018, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy (discogenic and osteoarthritis) beginning March 29, 2018, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy (discogenic and osteoarthritis) prior to March 29, 2018, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy (discogenic and osteoarthritis) beginning March 29, 2018, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy (intervertebral osteochondrosis) prior to March 29, 2018, is remanded. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy (intervertebral osteochondrosis) beginning March 29, 2018, is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran filed an informal claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychological condition on January 30, 2009 and there were no formal claims, informal claims, or written intent to file claims for entitlement to service connection for a psychological condition prior to that date. 2. The Veteran filed an informal claim for entitlement to service connection for intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, a lumbar spine disability, tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, parotid gland neoplasm, right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, allergic rhinitis, and chronic sinusitis on May 16, 2008 and there were no formal claims, informal claims, or written intent to file claims for entitlement to service connection for these claims prior to that date. 3. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran’s hearing impairment was no worse than Level II in the right ear and no worse than Level III in the left ear. 4. Throughout the period on appeal, the impairment associated with the Veteran’s depressive disorder was productive of occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. 5. The Veteran’s parotid gland neoplasm did not result in functional impairment. 6. The Veteran does not have allergic rhinitis productive of nasal polyps, 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides, or complete obstruction on one side. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of January 30, 2009, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for depression have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 2. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 3. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for a lumbar spine disability, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 4. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 5. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 6. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for parotid gland neoplasm, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 7. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for a chronic rhinitis, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 8. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for sinusitis, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 9. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 10. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 11. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 12. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, for the grant of service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 13. The criteria for a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1—4.14, 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. 14. The criteria for an initial rating of 50 percent, but no higher, for depression prior to August 14, 2019, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1—4.14, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434. 15. The criteria for a rating in excess of 50 percent for depression beginning August 14, 2019, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1—4.14, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434. 16. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for parotid gland neoplasm have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1—4.14, 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6209. 17. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1—4.14, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active naval service from June 1955 to February 1959. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from multiple rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a June 2019 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to a rating of 20 percent for discogenic and osteoarthritis changes with large disc bulges, L4-L-5 and L5-S1, effective May 20, 2011. In a December 2019 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to a rating of 50 percent for depression NOS, effective December 5, 2019. In a February 2020 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to ratings of 10 percent for right and left upper and lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, respectively, effective May 20, 2011. Those were not complete grants of the benefits sought on appeal. However, the Board has limited its consideration accordingly. With respect to the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, the Board finds that such matter has been raised in connection with the Veteran's increased rating claims on appeal. Thus, the Board has assumed jurisdiction over the matter as part and parcel of his increased rating claims. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Additionally, the Veteran has a separate appeal regarding entitlement to an initial compensable rating for sinusitis, for which the Veteran selected the Evidence Submission lane when he opted into the AMA review system in March 2020. That appeal was remanded by the Board in a November 2020 and further development is required. Effective Dates According to applicable law and regulation, except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an award of compensation based upon an original claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The date of entitlement to an award of service connection will be the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year after separation from service. Otherwise, the effective date will be the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i). The effective date of an evaluation and an award of compensation based on a reopened claim is the date of receipt of the new claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(2), (r). Thus, once a previous decision has become final, the earliest effective date of service connection generally is the date of the petition to reopen rather than the date of the initial claim. Exceptions to this rule include a later grant of service connection based in whole or in part on newly obtained service department records under certain circumstances, as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), and when the decision is revised or reversed on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE), as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5109A(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 20, 2011 for the grant of service connection for depression The Veteran generally asserts that an effective date earlier than May 20, 2011 is warranted for the grant of service connection for depression. The Veteran filed an informal claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychological condition on January 30, 2009, and the claim was initially denied in a February 2010 rating decision. In a March 2010 statement, the Veteran requested reconsideration of the claim. In a May 2010 rating decision, the RO again denied the claim and the Veteran was informed of this decision by letter dated May 19, 2010. In a statement dated May 17, 2011 and received by VA on May 20, 2011, the Veteran indicated that he had provided new information and that he wished for VA to re-evaluate the claim. The claim was again denied; however, it later granted in a February 2018 Board decision and subsequently assigned an effective date of May 20, 2011 by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in a March 2018 rating decision. Notably, a Notice of Disagreement must express disagreement with a determination of the AOJ and express a desire to contest the result. 38 C.F.R. § 20.201. While special wording is not required, the Notice of Disagreement must be in terms that can reasonably be construed as disagreement with the determination and a desire for appellate review. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.201; see also Gallegos v. Principi, 283 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, the Board will liberally construe the March 2010 correspondence as a timely Notice of Disagreement to the depression claim. As such, the Board finds that an effective date of January 30, 2009, the date in which he filed his initial claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychological condition, is the appropriate effective date. As noted above, the assignment of effective dates of awards is generally governed by 38 U.S.C. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Generally, the effective date of an evaluation and award compensation based on an original claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. In this case, the date of claim is the later of the two dates, and, as such, January 30, 2009 is the appropriate effective date for the claim on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran may have had a diagnosis of a psychological condition prior to filing his claim for service connection for that disability, indicating that entitlement to service connection for such disability arose prior to the January 30, 2009 date of claim. However, the effective date of service connection will be the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Here, the date of claim is the later of the two dates and as such, is the appropriate effective date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Thus, the claim for an effective date of January 30, 2009, but no sooner, is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 20, 2011 for the grants of service connection for depression, intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, lumbar spine disorder, tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, chronic rhinitis, and sinusitis The Veteran generally asserts that an effective date earlier than May 20, 2011 is warranted for the grants of service connection for intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, lumbar spine disability, tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, parotid gland neoplasm, right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, allergic rhinitis, and chronic sinusitis. The Veteran filed a formal claim for entitlement to service connection for intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, lumbar spine disability, tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, parotid gland neoplasm, right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, allergic rhinitis, and chronic sinusitis on May 16, 2008. The Veteran was initially denied service connection for intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, discogenic and osteoarthritis changes with large disc bulges at L4-L5 and L5-S1, lower extremity radiculopathy, Warthin’s tumor, an ear and nose condition, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus in a December 2008 rating decision. In January 2009, the Veteran filed a statement requesting service connection for the above-mentioned claims. In a February 2010 rating decision, the RO treated the January 2009 statement as a request for reconsideration and denied those claims on the merits. In a March 2010 statement, the Veteran requested reconsideration of the claims denied in the February 2010 rating decision. In a May 2010 rating decision, the RO again denied the claims and the Veteran was informed of this decision by letter dated May 19, 2010. In a May 2011 statement, the Veteran indicated that he had provided new information and that he wished for VA to evaluate each of the above-mentioned denials. The claims of entitlement to service connection for intervertebral osteochondrosis, a lumbar spine disability, acquired psychiatric disorder, bilateral hearing loss, right lower extremity radiculopathy associated with discogenic and osteoarthritis, right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy associated with discogenic and osteoarthritis, left lower extremity radiculopathy associated with discogenic and osteoarthritis, and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy associated with discogenic and osteoarthritis were subsequently denied but later granted in a February 2018 Board decision and ultimately assigned effective dates of May 20, 2011 by the AOJ in March 2018 and October 2018 rating decisions. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis was granted in an October 2018 rating decision and assigned a rating, effective May 20, 2011. The October 2018 rating decision also granted entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy associated with intervertebral osteochondrosis, left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy associated with intervertebral osteochondrosis, right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy associated with intervertebral osteochondrosis, and left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy associated with intervertebral osteochondrosis, and assigned ratings effective March 29, 2018, which were changed to May 20, 2011 in a February 2020 rating decision. In a March 2019 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis, effective May 20, 2011. The Board will liberally construe the March 2010 correspondence as timely Notices of Disagreements with respect to the above-mentioned issues on appeal. As such, the Board finds that effective dates of May 16, 2008, the date in which he filed his initial claims for entitlement to service connection for a intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, a lumbar spine disability, tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, parotid gland neoplasm, right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, allergic rhinitis, and chronic sinusitis are the appropriate effective dates. As noted above, the assignment of effective dates of awards is generally governed by 38 U.S.C. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Generally, the effective date of an evaluation and award compensation based on an original claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. In this case, the date of claim is the later of the two dates, and, as such, May 16, 2008 is the appropriate effective date for the claims on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran may have had a diagnoses of intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, discogenic and osteoarthritis changes with large disc bulges at L4-L5 and L5-S1, bilateral upper and lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, parotid gland neoplasm, sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus prior to filing his claims for service connection for those disabilities, indicating that entitlement to service connection for such disabilities arose prior to the May 16, 2008 date of claim. However, the effective date of service connection will be the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Here, the date of claim is the later of the two dates and as such, is the appropriate effective date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Thus, the claims for earlier effective dates of May 16, 2008, but no sooner, are granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Increased Rating Claims Disability ratings are determined by evaluating the extent to which a Veteran’s service-connected disability adversely affects his or her ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing his or her symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. If two ratings are potentially applicable, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. 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). Staged ratings are appropriate whenever the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Id. Bilateral Hearing Loss Ratings of hearing loss range from noncompensable to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of speech discrimination tests combined with the average hearing threshold levels as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 cycles per second. To rate the degree of disability for service-connected hearing loss, the Rating Schedule has established eleven auditory acuity levels, designated from Level I, for essentially normal acuity, through Level XI, for profound deafness. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(h), Table VI. In order to establish entitlement to a compensable rating for hearing loss, it must be shown that certain minimum levels of the combination of the percentage of speech discrimination loss and average pure tone decibel loss are met. The assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment is derived by a mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometric evaluations are rendered. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345, 349 (1992). The criteria for rating hearing impairment use controlled speech discrimination tests (Maryland CNC) together with the results of pure tone audiometry tests. These results are then charted on Table VI, or Table VIA in exceptional cases as described in 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, and Table VII, as set out in the Rating Schedule. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. An exceptional pattern of hearing loss occurs when the pure tone threshold at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz is 55 decibels or more, or when the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. The Veteran asserts that he should have a compensable rating for his bilateral hearing loss because his disability is worse than contemplated by the currently assigned rating. An August 2019 VA audiological evaluation was conducted. At that time, the examiner noted that the Veteran did not experience any functional impact due to hearing loss on his daily life. Audiological testing results at that time were as follows: Hertz 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average Right Ear 35 45 65 70 54 Left Ear 40 55 75 80 63 Speech recognition ability was 88 percent in the right ear and 88 percent in the left ear. The examiner diagnosed bilateral hearing loss. Applying those values to the rating criteria results in a numeric designation of Level II in the right ear and Level III in the left ear. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VI. Application of the levels of hearing impairment in each ear to Table VII at 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 produces a noncompensable rating. An exceptional pattern of hearing loss was not shown. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. In addition to dictating objective test results, a VA audiologist must fully describe the functional effects caused by a hearing disability in the final report. Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447 (2007). The August 2019 VA examiner reported that the Veteran’s hearing loss did not impact ordinary conditions of daily life. Therefore, the Board finds that the audiology evaluation reports are in compliance with the requirements of Martinak. The Board also finds that the Veteran is not entitled to a compensable rating for his bilateral hearing loss. There is no indication from the record that the Veteran’s hearing impairment was worse than Level II in the right ear or Level III in the left ear. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. The result of the Veteran’s VA examination falls within the schedular criteria for, at worst, a noncompensable rating. Therefore, the criteria for an initial compensable rating have not been met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. To the extent that the Veteran and contends that his hearing loss is more severe than currently evaluated during any period on appeal, the Board observes that the Veteran, while competent to report symptoms, is not competent to report that his hearing acuity is of sufficient severity to warrant higher evaluations under VA’s tables for rating hearing loss disabilities because such an opinion requires medical expertise (training in evaluating hearing impairment), which he has not been shown to possess. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007) (although the claimant is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg or varicose veins, the claimant is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions). The Board has considered whether a staged rating under Hart, supra is appropriate; however, the Board finds that the remainder of his symptomatology has been stable throughout the appeal. Therefore, assigning a staged rating is not warranted. In Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017), the Court held that the rating criteria for hearing loss contemplate the functional effects of decreased hearing and difficulty understanding speech in an everyday environment as these are the effects that VA’s audiometric tests are designed to measure. The Veteran has not otherwise described functional effects that are considered exceptional or, that are not otherwise contemplated by the assigned rating. Id. Thus, his complete disability picture is compensated under the rating schedule. Further, neither he nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. Id. (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). Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims of entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. Depression The Veteran generally asserts that he should have higher ratings for his depression as it is worse than contemplated by the currently assigned ratings. Specific argument in support of this appeal has not been submitted. During the period on appeal, the Veteran’s depression is rated 30 percent prior to August 14, 2019 and 50 percent thereafter under Diagnostic Code 9434, which assigns ratings based upon the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders, a 30 percent rating is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and conversation normal, due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, weekly or less often panic attacks, chronic sleep impairment, and mild memory loss, such as forgetting names, directions, recent events. Id. A 50 percent rating is warranted when there is 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 such as, 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. Id. A 70 percent rating is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to 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, or 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 the inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A maximum 100 percent rating is warranted when there is 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 and place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id. The symptoms listed in the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list. Rather, the symptoms serve as examples of the type and degree of the symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002). At an October 2011 VA examination, the examiner diagnosed depressive disorder, NOS. At that time, the Veteran denied attending therapy and reported that he used anti-depressant medication. On examination, the Veteran presented as casually dressed. Speech was unremarkable and he was cooperative and attentive with appropriate mood. He was well oriented to person, place and time, and judgment, and memory and insight were intact. The Veteran denied homicidal or suicidal ideation or intent, as well as hallucinations, panic attacks, and delusions. He indicated that he did not have ritualistic behaviors, and reported that he was unemployed. At an August 2019 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he maintained contact with several friends. He indicated that he enjoyed going to the gym and that he participated in Juan 24 Association. He commented that he lived alone and that he had been separated for many years and had three children. The Veteran reported that he was unemployed because his prior employer went bankrupt. The Veteran denied homicidal or suicidal ideation or intent. The examiner reported that the Veteran’s depressive disorder was productive of anxiety, depressed mood, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect, circumstantial, circumlocutory or stereotyped speech, disturbances in motivation and mood. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s major depressive disorder was most productive of occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress. A review of the record shows that the Veteran receives treatment at the VA Medical Center for various disabilities. However, there is no indication from the record that his depressive disorder symptoms are manifestly different than those reported at above-mentioned VA examinations. Based on the evidence of record, lay and medical, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to an initial 50 percent rating, but no higher, prior to August 14, 2019. In this regard, the Veteran’s overall disability picture more closely approximates the criteria for a 50 percent rating, which contemplates occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The Board considered the lay statements of record describing symptoms, and considers them to be probative, but finds that they are representative of symptomatology that most closely approximates a rating of 50 percent. In this regard, the Veteran reported, among other symptoms, anxiety, depressed mood, stereotyped speech, flattened affect, circumstantial speech, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect, circumstantial, circumlocutory or stereotyped speech, disturbances in motivation and mood. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran, through no fault of his own, was not scheduled for a VA examination to address the symptomatology associated with his major depressive disorder for an almost eight year period between October 2011 and August 2019. Moreover, the October 2011 VA examination was associated with his initial claims for service connection and provided limited information with which the Board can use to assess the severity of his major depressive disorder, and therefore the Board affords the Veteran the benefit of the doubt that the symptoms reflected in the August 2019 VA examination were present throughout the period on appeal before this time as well. Next, based on the evidence of record, lay and medical, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to a rating in excess of 50 percent at any time during the appeal period. In this regard, the Veteran’s overall disability picture more closely approximates the criteria for a 50 percent rating, which, as mentioned above, contemplates occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity without social and occupational impairment with deficiencies in most areas or total social and occupational impairment. Impairment to mood was demonstrated as the Veteran reported anxiety and depression. Impairment to family relations was not shown as reported that the was separated from his wife due to his history of drug and alcohol use but that they remained friends. Impairment to judgment or thinking was not shown as he exhibited no delusions, hallucinations, obsessive rituals, or suicidal ideations. Neither school or work were attempted during the appeal period. The Veteran reported, among other symptoms, anxiety, depressed mood, stereotyped speech, flattened affect, circumstantial speech, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect, circumstantial, circumlocutory or stereotyped speech, disturbances in motivation and mood. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. Moreover, the August 2019 VA examiner reported that the Veteran’s major depressive disorder was productive of occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decreased work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress. The Veteran appeared well groomed at each examination, and his speech was not illogical, obscure, or irrelevant. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Veteran’s depressive disorder significantly interfered with his ability to perform his job, as he reported that he had not worked for several years because his prior place of employment had filed for bankruptcy. In short, the Board does not find that the Veteran’s symptomatology in terms of frequency, duration, or severity more closely approximates a 70 percent rating for social and occupational impairment with deficiencies in most areas. The Board finds that at no point pertinent to the higher rating claim has the Veteran displayed a total social and occupational impairment as indicated by symptoms such as spatial disorientation, gross impairment in thought processes or communication, persistent delusions, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self or others, disorientation to time or place and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation or own name. The Veteran was not totally socially impaired as he reported being friends with his wife, that he goes to the gym, that he is a member of an association and that he keeps in touch with several friends from service. Therefore, a total level of impairment had not been demonstrated in the clinical evidence or alleged by the Veteran. For these reasons, a rating in excess of 50 percent for depressive disorder is not warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. In assessing the severity of the depressive disorder, the Board has considered the competent lay assertions regarding symptoms experienced and observed. See, e.g., Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) and Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993). However, the criteria needed to support higher ratings as the required medical findings that are within the province of trained medical professionals. See Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 134, 137-138 (1994). As such, the lay assertions are not considered more persuasive than the objective medical findings which, as indicated above, do not support assignment of any higher rating pursuant to any applicable criteria at any point pertinent to this appeal. The Board notes the contentions of the Veteran and his representative that the Veteran’s depressive disorder is more severe than currently shown on examination; and the Board observes that the Veteran, while competent to report his observable symptoms, he is not competent to report that his mental health symptoms are of sufficient severity to warrant a higher rating under VA’s tables for rating such disabilities because such an opinion requires medical expertise which he has not been shown to have. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). Despite the foregoing, the Board acknowledges the Veteran and his attorney’s reports of the Veteran’s symptoms. However, even after considering such contentions as to the effects of the disability on his daily life, the Board finds that the criteria for a higher 70 or 100 percent rating are not met. See Lendenmann, supra. The Rating Schedule contemplates such impairment under the ordinary conditions of daily life. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10; see also Martinak v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 447, 455 (2007). This argument is therefore without merit. The Board has considered whether a staged rating under Hart, supra is appropriate; however, the Board finds that his symptomatology has been stable throughout the period on appeal. Therefore, assigning a staged rating is not warranted. The Veteran and/or his attorney has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record in regard to the increased rating claim adjudicated herein. Doucette v. Shulkin, supra. In this case, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to an initial rating of 50 percent, but no higher, prior to August 14, 2019, and that the preponderance of the evidence is against a rating higher than 50 percent at any point during the appeal period. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. Parotid Gland Neoplasm The Veteran generally asserts that he should have an initial compensable rating for his parotid gland neoplasm because his disability is worse than contemplated by the currently assigned rating. Specific argument in support of this appeal has not been submitted. This appeal stems from a claim dated in May 2008. During the period on appeal, the Veteran’s parotid gland neoplasm is rated noncompensable under Diagnostic Code 6209 for benign neoplasms of the ear (other than skin only), which is rated based on impairment of function. Under Diagnostic Code 6522, for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis, a 10 percent rating is assigned for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis without polyps, but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. A 30 percent rating is assigned when polyps are present. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522. At an August 2019 VA examination, the examiner reported that the Veteran’s parotid gland neoplasm was benign in nature. The examiner indicated that the Veteran was not receiving treatment for his neoplasm, and that the Veteran did not experience any residual conditions or complications due to the neoplasm. On examination, nasal endoscopy and laryngeal endoscopy were normal. The examiner reported that the Veteran did not have any scars associated with the neoplasm and no other pertinent findings were noted. The examiner commented that the Veteran’s neoplasm appeared unchanged since 2011. The examiner indicated that the Veteran’s parotid gland neoplasm did not impact his ability to work. A review of the Veteran’s VA Medical Center treatment records does not show that the Veteran has complained of symptoms not reflected in the August 2019 VA examination. The Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled an initial compensable rating for parotid gland neoplasm. The record does not establish, and the Veteran has not alleged, that he experienced functional impairment as a result of his parotid gland neoplasm. Moreover, the August 2019 VA examiner found no impairment associated with the Veteran’s parotid gland neoplasm and indicated that it had remained unchanged since 2011. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87-2, Diagnostic Code 6209. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s statement that his parotid gland neoplasm is more severe than evaluated. The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and has presented credible statements in this regard. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Board finds, however, that neither the Veteran’s statement nor medical evidence demonstrates that the criteria for a compensable disability evaluation have been met. In determining the actual degree of disability, the examination findings are more probative of the degree of impairment. The Board has considered whether a staged rating under Hart, supra, is warranted, however, the Board finds that his symptomatology has been stable throughout the period on appeal. Therefore, assigning a staged rating is not warranted. Further, neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, supra. In this case, the preponderance of the evidence is against an initial compensable rating percent for his parotid gland neoplasm and the claim must, accordingly, be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. Allergic Rhinitis The Veteran generally asserts that he should have an initial compensable rating for his rhinitis because his disability is worse than contemplated by the currently assigned rating. Specific argument in support of this appeal has not been submitted. This appeal stems from a claim dated in May 2008. During the period on appeal, the Veteran’s rhinitis is rated noncompensable under Diagnostic Code 6522. Under Diagnostic Code 6522, for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis, a 10 percent rating is assigned for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis without polyps, but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. A 30 percent rating is assigned when polyps are present. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522. At an August 2018 VA examination, the examiner diagnosed chronic allergic rhinitis. At that time, the Veteran reported that he experienced nasal stuffiness, persistent cough lasting for 2 weeks with occasional yellowish secretions, frontal pressure and sneezing. The Veteran reported that he had difficulty breathing through his nose during moderate exercise. He indicated that his nasal stuffiness was constant and that it was associated with frontal headaches for which he used prescription medication to alleviate symptoms. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s rhinitis did not require the use of oral or parenteral corticosteroid medications, inhaled medications, an oral bronchodilator, antibiotics, or oxygen therapy. No other pertinent findings were noted, and the examiner indicated that the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis did not affect his ability to work. At a November 2018 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he experienced nasal and sinus congestion and that he used over-the-counter medication to alleviate symptoms. On examination, the Veteran did not have greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on his left and right nostrils nor did the Veteran have complete obstruction of the left or right nostrils. There was no evidence of nasal polyps, or granulomatous conditions. The examiner noted that the Veteran experienced permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates. No other pertinent findings were noted, and the examiner indicated that the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis did not affect his ability to work. A review of the Veteran’s VA Medical Center treatment records does not show that the Veteran has complained of symptoms not reflected in the August 2019 and November 2018 VA examinations. The Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled an initial compensable rating for allergic rhinitis. The record does not establish, and the Veteran has not alleged, that he has nasal polyps or that the Veteran has a greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides, or complete obstruction on one side. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s statement that his rhinitis is more severe than evaluated. The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and has presented credible statements in this regard. Layno v. Brown, supra. The Board finds, however, that neither the Veteran’s statement nor medical evidence demonstrates that the criteria for a compensable disability evaluation have been met. In determining the actual degree of disability, the examination findings are more probative of the degree of impairment. The Board has considered whether a staged rating under Hart, supra, is warranted, however, the Board finds that his symptomatology has been stable throughout the period on appeal. Therefore, assigning a staged rating is not warranted. Further, neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, supra. In this case, the preponderance of the evidence is against an initial compensable rating percent for his rhinitis and the claim must, accordingly, be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. REASONS FOR REMAND The Board finds that additional development is required before the remaining claims on appeal are decided. Increased Rating Intervertebral osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, right and left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, and right and left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy In March 2018, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to ascertain the severity of his Intervertebral Osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7 disability. The Veteran reported that he experienced flare-ups during the examination. A review of the examination report shows that the findings reported are not in compliance with the requirements outlined in Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). Specifically, in determining the functional limitations experienced following repeated use with regard to range of motion, the examiner did not provide an opinion. Therefore, the Veteran should be afforded new VA examinations to determine the currently level of severity of all impairment resulting from his Intervertebral Osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7, right upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy, and left lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. The Board finds that the claim for a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the increased rating claims remanded herein. See Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 177 (2009) (en banc) (explaining that claims are inextricably intertwined where the adjudication of one claim could have a significant impact on the adjudication of another claim); Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Thus, adjudication of the Veteran's TDIU claim must be deferred The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given the opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claims on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained, to include updated VA treatment records. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and his representative and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in her possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Following the receipt of outstanding records, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an examiner with appropriate expertise to address the current level of severity of all impairment resulting from his Intervertebral Osteochondrosis, C3-C4, C6-C7. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. The examiner should provide all information required for rating purposes, to include all information required by Correia and Sharp, as well as all functional impairments. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination(s) by an examiner with appropriate expertise to determine the current level of severity of all impairment resulting from his right and left upper and lower extremity radiculopathy and peripheral neuropathy disabilities in accordance with VA rating criteria. The claims file must be made available to, and reviewed by the examiner. A complete rationale should be given for each opinion expressed. In this regard, a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be considerable assistance to the Board. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher O'Donnell, 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.