Citation Nr: 21064251 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 13-35 141 DATE: October 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right hand injury is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), prior to December 13, 2017, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran is currently in receipt of the maximum schedular rating for his service-connected right-hand disability. 2. Prior to December 13, 2017, the Veteran did not meet the schedular criteria for TDIU, and the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that his service-connected disabilities render him unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment so as to warrant referral for extraschedular consideration. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for right hand disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5230-5024. 2. Prior to December 13, 2017, the criteria for an extraschedular TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from February 2007 to August 2009. In February 2018 and February 2021, the Board remanded the claim for further development. In his December 2013 VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a Board hearing. However, in a February 2016 telephone call, the Veteran withdrew his hearing request. As such, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). The Board will proceed with the adjudication of the claim. 1. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right hand injury Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) and are intended to represent the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. Disabilities must be reviewed in relation to their history. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations apply, the Board assigns the higher of the two where the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating. See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.7, 4.10; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). The Veteran's right-hand injury has been initially evaluated as zero percent disabling under DC 5230-5024. During the pendency the Veteran's appeal, VA amended criteria for rating musculoskeletal disabilities. The new regulation applies to claims received on or after February 7, 2021 or previously filed claims that are pending on February 7, 2021 if the new regulation will render more favorable result for the Veteran. As such, the Board will evaluate the Veteran's disability under both old and new regulations for the entire appeal period and choose the more favorable result. The new regulation revises the rating criteria for DC 5024 for tenosynovitis, tendinitis, tendinosis, or tendinopathy. The new regulation states, note to DCs 5013 through 5024, evaluate the diseases under diagnostic codes 5013 through 5024 as degenerative arthritis, based on limitation of motion of affected parts. Under the old regulation, DC 5024 stated that the diseases under DC 5013 through 5024 will be rated on imitation of motion of affected parts, as arthritis, degenerative, except gout which will be rated under DC 5002. Diagnostic Code 5230 did not change and provides for ring or little finger limitation of motions. A noncompensable rating is assigned for any limitation of motion. VA regulations set forth at 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, and 4.59 provide for consideration of functional impairment due to pain on motion when evaluating the severity of a musculoskeletal disability. If feasible, these determinations are to be expressed in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to any weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, or pain. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80, 84-5 (1997); 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2020). Moreover, joint testing is to be conducted on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 170 (2016). Analysis The Veteran contends that his disability is more severe than the rating depicts. Specifically, in 2011, he stated that the pain in his right hand is more than sporadic. He stated that he experiences constant ongoing pain that inhibited his use in sign language, i.e., his primary profession. He also stated that his right hand and fingers were immobilized and did not move anymore. In February 2011, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his right hand injury. The Veteran described spontaneous pain to the right hand that started around November 2007. He felt the pain was due to overhead lifting and working with tools (riveting). He denied being treated. The Veteran stated that he was not evaluated for his right hand after the military and did not self-treat. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with right hand sprain. The Veteran is right hand dominant. The Veteran reported constant, throbbing/aching pain; weakness, at times; stiffness in the morning or afternoon; and clicking, crepitus, or popping. There examiner noted no deformity, swelling, heat, bruising or redness, drainage, fatigue, numbness or tingling, radiation, or decreased range of motion (ROM). The Veteran did not report functional limitations; dislocations or subluxations; pain that woke him up at night; incapacitating episodes; alterations in bowel, bladder, penile function; or effects in his routine activities of daily living (ADL). The Veteran did not experience flare-ups. He reported instability, locking, or giving way, i.e., he stated that he dropped objects from his right hand. He lacked endurance for typing and signing, and the pain became worse with these activities. The pain was better with rest, medication, and avoiding using the hand. He denied using an assistive device. He did not have a history of neoplasm and was not diagnosed with arthritis. The examiner noted no lesions, deformities, malalignment, erythema, ecchymosis, heat, instability, swelling, drainage, or scars. Additionally, there was no evidence of crepitus. The examiner noted slight vague tenderness to dorsum of right hand without guarding/grimacing. The Veteran's hand was non painful with motion. There was no evidence of weakness, decreased strength with ROM, lack of endurance, instability, fatigue, spasm, incoordination, subluxation, obvious atrophy, or tone. The dynamometer reading on the right was 70 lbs. and 90 lbs. for the left. The examiner noted no measurable gap between the tip of the thumb and fingers, no measurable gap between the tip of the fingers and the proximal transverse crease of the palm, and no measurable gap between the thumb pad and the fingers with the thumb attempting to oppose the fingers. The examiner noted negative Finkelstein maneuver or anatomical snuff box tenderness. MCP flexion was to 90 degrees without limitations following repetitive use testing with three repetitions. PIP joint was to 100 degrees without limitations following repetitive use testing with three repetitions. DIP joint was to 80 degrees without limitations following repetitive use testing with three repetitions. In January 2015, the Veteran was afforded another VA examination to determine the severity of his right hand injury. The Veteran reported injuring the palm of his right hand in the military. Since then, he had not seen a doctor for this problem. The examiner confirmed the Veteran's right-hand strain. The Veteran did not report functional impairment due to his right hand. The examiner stated that, if the right hand was severely disabled since 2009, the Veteran would have seen medical personnel for treatment since discharge. In June 2018, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the severity of his right hand injury. The Veteran stated that his symptoms began in 2008. The condition began while he was working with power tools and sliced his pinky and thumb. He went to the hospital and the examiner stitched him up. The Veteran began physical therapy in 2009 and took ibuprofen for pain. He stated that his hand was numb most of the times, and the feeling in it had decreased. Additionally, the hand tended to lock up while he was using it. The Veteran stated that due to daily usage, the condition had gotten worse. The examiner stated that VA established diagnosis of right-hand injury. However, he changed the diagnosis. The examiner stated that flexor tendon laceration DIP joint right 5th finger, residual scar due to laceration, and right 5th finger strain is the correct diagnosis. The Veteran reported flare-ups of the right hand that he described as both a constant ache and a sharp pain. There were no flare-ups on the left hand. He reported overall functional impairment, i.e., he was no longer able to grab objects without pain or write for long periods of time without pain, and he was unable to move his hand without pain. Right-and left-hand ROM were all normal. Pain was noted on left finger flexion but did not result in/cause functional loss. There was no evidence of pain with use of hand. Regarding the left hand, no pain was noted on the exam. Bilaterally, there was no gap between the pad of the thumb and fingers or between the finger and proximal transverse crease of the hand on maximal finger flexion. The examiner noted objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the DIP and PIP joint of the 5th finger of the right hand but none on the left. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive-use testing with at least three repetitions. Bilaterally, there was no additional functional loss or ROM after three repetitions. The Veteran was not examined immediately after repetitive use over time or during a flare-up; the examiner stated that the examination was neither medically consistent nor inconsistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time. Pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination did not significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over a period of time. Regarding Correia requirements, the examiner noted objective evidence of pain on passive ROM testing and objective evidence of pain on non-weight bearing testing of the right hand. The examiner stated that the Veteran exhibited pain on the right-hand finger flexion. There was no evidence of pain on passive ROM testing or evidence of pain on non-weight bearing testing of the left hand. The examiner noted additional contributing factors of the right-hand disability, to include less movement than normal due to ankylosis, adhesions, etc. There were no additional contributing factors of disability. Bilaterally, hand grip strength was normal with no muscle atrophy. The Veteran did not have ankylosis. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, or symptoms related to the Veteran's condition. The Veteran had a scar; however, the scar was not painful, unstable, had a total area equal to or greater than 39 sq. cm, or located on the head, face, or neck. The scar was located on his anterior aspect of the 5th finger and measured 2.5 cm x 0.2 cm. Functioning was not so diminished that amputation with prosthesis would equally serve the Veteran. X-rays showed no abnormality in the right hand. The Veteran's disability impacted his ability to perform any type of occupation, i.e., he was unable to do repeated gripping activities. In November 2020, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the severity of his right-hand disability. The Veteran reported the dorsum on his right hand was smashed in 2007. He reported daily pain in his right hand. At the time of the exam, the Veteran took pain medication as needed; however, the medication did not help relief the pain. He stated that he had to quit multiple jobs secondary to pain and inability to perform. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with right hand contusion. The examiner changed the diagnosis. He stated that right hand contusion was more accurate to reflect the Veteran's injury. The Veteran did not report flare-ups. However, he reported functional loss or functional impairment, i.e., painful ROM. The Veteran's left-hand ROM was all normal, and the examiner noted no pain on exam. However, the Veteran's right-hand ROM was abnormal. His right finger extension for the index, long, ring, and little fingers and thumb was to zero degrees. MCP flexion for the index, long, and ring fingers was to 90 degrees, PIP to 100 degrees, and DIP to 70 degrees. Right little finger MCP flexion was to 90 degrees, PIP to 100 degrees, and DIP to 35 degrees. Pain was noted on exam on rest/non-movement. Bilaterally, the examiner noted no gap between the pad of the thumb and fingers or between the finger and proximal transverse crease of the hand on maximal finger flexion. Additionally, there was no objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissue. The Veteran right-hand ROM itself contributed to functional loss. The examiner noted no evidence of pain on passive ROM testing and no evidence of pain on non-weight bearing testing of the left or right hand. Bilaterally, the Veteran was unable to perform repetitive-use testing with at least three repetitions. He stated that there was too much pain to perform repetitive use testing. Additionally, he was not examined immediately after repetitive use over time; the examiner stated that the examination was medically inconsistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time. The examiner also stated that the exam was inconsistent with functional loss as maximum effort was not utilized. The examiner was unable to say without mere speculation whether pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination significantly limited functional ability with repeated use over a period of time. After reviewing the Veteran's history, current exam findings, relevant evidence of record, and utilizing clinical judgment and medical expertise, the examiner was unable to determine ROM without resorting to speculation. Additionally, the Veteran was not examined during repeated use over time and could not describe or demonstrate the decrease ROM with repeated use over time or during flare-ups. Bilaterally, there were no additional contributing factors of disability. Muscle strength testing was normal with no muscle atrophy. The Veteran did not have ankylosis. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, or symptoms related to the Veteran's condition. The Veteran had a scar; however, the scar was not painful; unstable; had a total area equal to or greater than 39 sq. cm; or located on the head, face, or neck. The scar was located on his anterior aspect of the 5th finger and measured 2.5 cm x 0.2 cm. The Veteran did not use an assistive device. Functioning was not so diminished that amputation with prosthesis would equally serve the Veteran. The Veteran's disability did not have an impact on his ability to perform any type of occupation. In February 2021, the Board noted that in multiple statements, the Veteran stated that his hand was numb most of the time, and it tended to lock up when using it. Based on the Veteran's statements, the Board remanded the claim for a VA neurological examination to determine the severity of his service-connected right-hand disability. In June 2021, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the severity of his right-hand disability. The Veteran stated, during service, he suffered three lacerations affecting three different fingers on the right hand. Since onset, the injury had gotten worse. He treated his disability with tramadol. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with right hand strain status-post laceration injuries affecting multiple digits. The Veteran reported flare-ups of the hand, finger, or thumb. The flare-ups occurred daily, lasted for hours, and ranged from dull to sharp. Precipitating factors included activities, and his disability was moderately severe. Alleviating factors included tramadol and rest. The Veteran's disability had a moderate functional impairment. The Veteran reported experiencing functional loss or functional impairment of the hand, to include difficulty using his right hand. The Veteran's left hand was undamaged. Left hand active and passive ROM were normal. There was no gap between the pad of the thumb and fingers or between the finger and proximal transverse crease of the hand on maximal finger flexion. There was no objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissue. There were no additional contributing factors of disability. Right hand active and passive ROM were abnormal. Index, long, and ring finger flexion and extension were normal. Little finger and thumb extension were normal. Little finger MCP flexion was to 80 degrees, PIP to 90 degrees, and DIP to zero degrees. Thumb MCP flexion was to 90 degrees and PIP to 80 degrees. There was a 1 cm gap between the pad of the thumb and fingers on both active and passive ROM. There was no gap between the finger and proximal transverse crease of the hand on maximal finger flexion on active or passive ROM. The examiner noted objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of all five fingers. The objective evidence of tenderness or pain was related to the strain and was mild to moderate in severity. There was evidence of pain on weight-bearing, non-weight bearing, active and passive motion, on rest/non-movement, and it caused functional loss. The pain caused difficulty lifting/carrying heavy objects, pushing, and pulling. The Veteran's left hand was undamaged. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive-use testing with at least three repetitions, and there was no additional loss of function or ROM after three repetitions. The Veteran had a 1 cm gap between the pad of the thumb and fingers after the completion of three repetitions. There was no gap between the finger and proximal transverse crease of the hand on maximal finger flexion after the completion of three repetitions. Pain was noted and caused functional loss. The Veteran was not examined immediately after repeated use over time or during a flare-up. Procured evidence (statements from the Veteran) suggested that pain significantly limited functional ability with repeated use over time or during a flare-up. The examiner estimated that there was no additional loss of ROM after three repeated used over time or during a flare-up. The examiner also estimated that there was a 1 cm gap between the pad of the thumb and fingers immediately after repeated use over time. He estimated no gap between the finger and proximal transverse crease of the hand on maximal finger flexion immediately after repeated use over time. The examiner's estimations were based on the Veteran's statement on examination and the examiner's medical expertise. Right hand muscle strength testing revealed active movement against some resistance. The examiner noted reduction in muscle strength that was due to the disability. There was no muscle atrophy. The Veteran did not have ankylosis. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, or symptoms related to the Veteran's condition. The Veteran had a scar related to his right-hand disability. The Veteran did not use an assistive device. There was no functional impairment of an extremity such that no effective functions remain other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation with prosthesis. The Veteran's disability impacted his ability to perform any type of occupation that included difficulty lifting/carrying heavy objects, driving, typing, and writing. The Veteran's VA treatment records note that the Veteran was treated for right handstiffness and pain. The Veteran was afforded a neurological exam in August 2021. The Veteran was diagnosed with cubital nerve syndrome and carpal tunnel syndrome. In August 2021, the regional office granted service connection for right hand carpal tunnel syndrome with cubital tunnel syndrome. Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that a compensable rating is not warranted. The Board is cognizant that the Veteran has reported experiencing pain. Unfortunately, the Veteran cannot be compensated for painful motion under DC 5230. For a painful joint, a veteran can be awarded at least the minimum compensable rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.59; Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2011) (applying § 4.59 in non-arthritis contexts). But a higher rating for pain is not available under DC 5230 because there is no minimal compensable rating. See Sowers, 27 Vet. App. at 480 ("Reading § 4.59 in conjunction with [Diagnostic Code] 5230, [the veteran] is not entitled to a compensable rating under this [code]."). The Board recognizes that, under DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995), VA must consider "functional loss" of a musculoskeletal disability separately from consideration under the DCs. "Functional loss" may occur because of pain, weakness, excess fatigability, incoordination, and flare-ups, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45 and 4.59 and the Court's holding in DeLuca v. Brown, supra. However, as the Veteran is in receipt of the maximum rating for limitation of motion of the ring finger, the Board need not consider the possible application of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, and 4.59. See Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80 (1997) (if a claimant is already receiving the maximum disability rating available based on symptomatology that includes limitation of motion, it is not necessary to consider whether 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 are applicable). Further, the Board has considered the potential application of the other provisions of 38 C.F.R., Parts 3 and 4. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991). The Board notes that other criteria for rating ring or little finger disabilities are provided under DCs 5216 through 5227 for favorable or unfavorable ankylosis. However, as he has not been diagnosed with ankylosis or amputation of the ring finger, there are no alternative DCs providing a higher schedular rating under which he could be evaluated. The August 2021 VA examiner noted carpal tunnel syndrome and the June 2021 examiner noted injuries and/or gaps related to the Veteran's other fingers on his right hand. The Board notes that the Veteran has been granted service connection for carpal tunnel syndrome and thumb, long finger, and index finger strain. The Veteran was also granted service connection for scar, anterior aspect of right 5th finger. The Board acknowledges the Veteran and his representative's statements regarding the severity of the Veteran's disability to be both competent and credible. However, as lay persons, they do not have the training or expertise to render a competent opinion which is more probative than the VA examiners' opinions and the other medical evidence of record, as this is a medical determination that is complex. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 309 (2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-71 (1994)). Thus, the Board finds that the lay opinions by themselves are outweighed by the medical evidence. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against an initial compensable rating for the Veteran's right-hand disability. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applicable, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. 2. Entitlement to TDIU prior to December 13, 2017 Total disability will be considered to exist where there is present any impairment of mind and body that is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.340. Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation because of service-connected disabilities, provided that the Veteran meets the schedular requirements. Specifically, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more; if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability that is ratable at 40 percent or more and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). If a Veteran fails to meet the threshold minimum percentage standards enunciated in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), rating boards should refer to the Director of Compensation and Pension Service for extraschedular consideration all cases where the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation because of service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b); see also Fanning v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 225 (1993). Thus, despite the Veteran not meeting the percentage requirements for TDIU, the Board must evaluate whether there are circumstances in the Veteran's case, apart from any non-service-connected conditions and advancing age which would have justified TDIU. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341(a), 4.19; see Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993); see also Hodges v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 375 (1993); Blackburn v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 395 (1993). The veteran's service-connected disabilities, employment history, educational and vocational attainment, and all other factors having a bearing on the issue must be addressed. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). "Substantially gainful employment" is employment "which is ordinarily followed by the nondisabled to earn their livelihood with earnings common to the particular occupation in the community where the veteran resides." Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356, 358 (1991). "Marginal employment shall not be considered substantially gainful employment." 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his age or to any impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. Analysis The Veteran contends that his service-connected disabilities prevent him from securing and maintaining substantially gainful employment. On November 22, 2014, the Veteran submitted VA Form 21-8940, Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. The Veteran completed four years of college. He last worked full-time as a stocker in November 2013. He reported becoming too disabled to work in 2011 and reported that his right-hand injury, bilateral plantar fasciitis pes planus, tinnitus, bilateral shoulder trapezius strain, and anxiety prevented him from securing and following any substantially gainful occupation. Since becoming too disabled to work, i.e., in 2012, he underwent education and/or training. However, he did not complete the training. In March 2018, the Veteran submitted an updated VA Form 21-8940. He stated that he became too disabled to work on September 29, 2016. He reported completing two years of high school and noted that he did not undergo any education or training since becoming too disabled to work. The Veteran has asserted that he last worked full-time on September 29, 2016. As such, the period relevant to the appeal begins on September 30, 2016. From September 30, 2016 to December 12, 2017, the Veteran was service connected for chronic headaches rated as noncompensable effective March 25, 2015; bilateral plantar fasciitis, pes planus rated as noncompensable effective August 22, 2009; pseudofolliculitis barbae, facial acne rated at 10 percent effective August 22, 2009; bilateral shoulder disability each rated at 20 percent effective August 22, 2009; and right hand injury and scar, anterior aspect of right 5th finger each rated as noncompensable effective August 22, 2009. From September 30, 2016 to December 12, 2017, the Veteran's overall rating was 50 percent. Throughout the period on appeal, he did not meet the threshold requirement for TDIU. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Therefore, TDIU is not warranted on a schedular basis. As the Veteran does not meet the schedular requirements for TDIU, the only remaining question is whether the Veteran was unable to secure or follow substantially gainful occupation because of his service-connected disabilities for purposes of an extraschedular TDIU evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). The Board does not currently have jurisdiction to authorize an extraschedular rating in the first instance. Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88 (1996); Cf. 66 Fed. Reg. 49, 886 (Oct. 1, 2001) (final rule proposal to authorize the Board to assign an extraschedular rating). It may, however, determine that a particular case warrants referral to the Director of Compensation for extraschedular consideration under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). For a Veteran to prevail on a claim for TDIU on an extraschedular basis, it is necessary that the record reflect some factor which places the case in a different category than other veterans with an equal rating of disability. See Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). The pertinent question is whether the Veteran can perform the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the Veteran can find employment. Id. This is so because a disability rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment. Id. Although outside the period on appeal, in his May 2015 Statement, the Veteran stated that he was working on his Masters of Science in Psychology degree. In August 2017, he noted that he was enrolled in school in February, March, and June of 2017. On October 10, 2016, the Veteran saw his private physician at the Valley Urgent Care. The examiner noted that in September 2016, the Veteran was involved in a motorcycle accident. At the time of the October 2016 exam, the Veteran complained of left knee and left elbow pain. The examiner noted that the Veteran worked with children and adolescents when he was grabbed at the elbow at the site where he had an abrasion from the motorcycle accident. The Veteran was referred for a left knee MRI. The examiner stated that the Veteran was "ok to return to work full-time, unrestricted." On October 11, the Veteran was seen at the Healthline Medical Group. The Veteran was diagnosed with left shoulder/arm sprain and forearm strain. The examiner noted that the Veteran was injured on October 7, 2016. The examiner stated that the injury met the criteria for First Aid. The Veteran was instructed to return to work with no limitations on October 11, 2016. On October 17, 2016, the Veteran saw his private physician at the Healthline Medial Group. The physician stated that the Veteran could return to work, the Veteran could perform the essential job functions, and there were no limitations placed on the Veteran. On November 3, 2016, the Veteran was seen at the Sepulveda VAMC for right shoulder pain. The Veteran stated that he had a very high pain tolerance and was constantly in pain. However, he stated the right and left shoulder bothered him with any movement. He also stated that he was in an accident at work as well as a motor vehicle accident that aggravated his pain. He stated that he was attending occupational therapy for his pain issues. Right shoulder x-rays revealed no evidence of acute right shoulder osseous injury or degenerative disease. Also, on November 3, the Veteran saw his private physician at the Healthworks, Medical Group. The examiner stated that as of November 3, 2016, the Veteran was able to return to work with restrictions. The examiner stated that the Veteran should not climb, and the examiner also told the Veteran to limit the use of his left hand, and limit overhead work, lifting, pushing, and pulling up to 10 lbs. The Veteran's expected maximum medical improvement date was November 24, 2016. In February 2017, the examiner instructed the Veteran to return to work without restrictions. Although outside the period on appeal, the Veteran submitted an application to the Social Security Administration. The Veteran stated that he completed four or more years of college. He worked as a test administrator and as a teacher's assistant from September 2016 to November 2016. He stated that he stopped working in March 2017 because he was in physical therapy occupation rehab. However, he believed that his conditions became severe enough to keep him from working in August 2014. Based on the evidence of records, the Board finds that the Veteran's disabilities did not preclude him from all forms of employment. During the period on appeal, the Veteran's disabilities impacted his ability to work. However, the weight of the evidence does not support his contention that his service-connected disabilities were of such severity so as to preclude his participation in any form of substantially gainful employment. The Veteran reported last working as a teacher's assistant. During his period working as a teacher's assistant, the Veteran was involved in a motorcycle accident. However, after the accident, the Veteran's private physicians noted that the Veteran was able to return to work. However, on his SSA paperwork, he stated that he stopped working in March 2017 because he was in physical therapy occupation rehab. The evidence demonstrates that the Veteran had been able to secure employment even when considering his disabilities. Additionally, his private treating physicians noted that he would be able to return to work. Therefore, the Board finds, for the period on appeal, there is no basis upon which to find that TDIU is warranted. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable, and the claim is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Moore, Tara-Deen 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.