Citation Nr: 21068317 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-40 190 DATE: November 10, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied. Service connection for a bilateral upper extremity neurological disability is denied. A rating in excess of 20 percent for lumbosacral strain with intervertebral disc syndrome and spinal stenosis prior to September 5, 2018 and from January 1, 2019 is denied. An initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy prior to June 19, 2017 and in excess of 20 percent from that date is denied. An initial rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy is denied. An initial compensable rating for surgical scar, lumbar spine, is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to Jun 21, 2017, due to service-connected disabilities is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A cervical spine disability did not manifest in service or within 1 year of separation, is unrelated to service, and is not caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service connected lumbar spine disability. 2. A bilateral upper extremity neurological disability did not manifest in service or within 1 year of separation and is unrelated to service. 3. Prior to September 5, 2018 and from January 1, 2019, the Veteran has not had forward flexion of his thoracolumbar spine limited to 30 degrees or less; or favorable ankylosis of his entire thoracolumbar spine; or intervertebral disc syndrome with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 4 weeks during the past 12 months. 4. Prior to June 19, 2017, the Veteran did not have moderate or worse incomplete paralysis of his right sciatic nerve, and from that date, he has not had moderately severe or worse incomplete paralysis of his right sciatic nerve. 5. During the rating period, the Veteran has not had moderately severe or worse incomplete paralysis of his left lower extremity sciatic nerve. 6. The Veteran's scar associated with the lumbar spine disability is not painful or unstable, does not have an area greater than 6 square inches (39 square centimeters), and does not cause any functional limitation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 2. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral upper extremity neurological disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 3. The criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for lumbosacral strain with intervertebral disc syndrome and spinal stenosis prior to September 5, 2018 and from January 1, 2019 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 5243. 4. The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy prior to June 19, 2017 and in excess of 20 percent from that date have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8620. 5. The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8620. 6. The schedular criteria for an initial compensable rating for surgical scar, lumbar spine, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7801-7805. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1980 to June 1998. The Board thanks him for his service. He appeals from a July 2015 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) rating decision based on claims filed in February 2015. In October 2016, the AOJ awarded service connection for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy associated with service-connected lumbosacral strain and assigned initial 20 percent and 10 percent disability ratings, respectively, both from September 28, 2016. In May 2017, the AOJ assigned an effective date of February 10, 2015 for the award of service connection for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy and backdated the respective above 20 and 10 percent compensation ratings to February 10, 2015. In September 2017, the AOJ assigned a 20 percent rating for right lower extremity radiculopathy, from June 19, 2017. In March 2019, the Board included the separate issues of entitlement to higher initial ratings for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy as part of the claim for an increased rating for the back disability and remanded the issues currently on appeal for additional development. Substantial compliance was obtained with the remand directives. On remand in August 2020, the AOJ granted a temporary total rating of 100 percent for the Veteran's service connected lumbar spine disability from September 5, 2018 through December 31, 2018, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.30, and then continued the 20 percent rating which had been in effect before that, effective from January 1, 2019. It also assigned a noncompensable rating for the lumbar spine surgical scarring caused by the surgery. Because the increased rating claim for the back is on appeal, the Board may exercise jurisdiction over the scar component of that service-connected disability. See Chavis v. McDonough, No. 18-2928 (U.S. Vet. App. Apr. 16, 2021). Pursuant to Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009), a claim for TDIU is part of an increased rating claim when such claim is expressly raised by the veteran or reasonably raised by the record. Here, a claim of entitlement to TDIU has been raised by the Veteran. Specifically, in June 2017, the Veteran filed a formal claim for TDIU arguing that he stopped working in June 2017 due to his service-connected disabilities. Thus, the Board has jurisdiction over this issue as part and parcel of his claims for increased ratings for his service-connected disabilities. In a September 2017 rating decision, the AOJ awarded TDIU, effective June 21, 2017, the date the Veteran indicated in his July 2017 VA Form 21-8940 that he became too disabled to work. However, an award of TDIU prior to June 21, 2017, is still pending in conjunction with his claims for increased ratings. See Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356 (2018) (holding that once entitlement to a TDIU is put in issue as part of a claim for a higher initial rating/increased rating and the AOJ grants a TDIU that does not span the entire period on appeal, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU for an earlier period is still on appeal). Service connection for cervical spine disability and bilateral upper extremity neurological disability The Veteran appeals for service connection for a cervical spine disability and a bilateral upper extremity neurological disability. He asserted in February and September 2015 that his bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy is due to his cervical spine disability, and that his cervical spine disability is due to or aggravated by his service connected lumbar spine disability. Service connection may be awarded on a presumptive basis for certain chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) that manifest to a degree of 10 percent within 1 year of service separation or during service and then again at a later date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed.Cir.2013). Arthritis and organic disease of the nervous system are considered to be chronic diseases under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. Evidence of continuity of symptomatology may be sufficient to invoke this presumption if a claimant demonstrates (1) that a condition was "noted" during service; (2) evidence of postservice continuity of the same symptomatology; and (3) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the postservice symptomatology. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007). Service connection may be granted, on a secondary basis, for a disability which is proximately due to, or the result of an established service-connected disorder. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Similarly, any increase in severity of a non-service connected disease or injury that is proximately due to or the result of a service connected disease or injury, and not due to the natural progress of the nonservice connected disease, will be service connected. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). In the latter instance, the non-service connected disease or injury is said to have been aggravated by the service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Based on the evidence, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted for the Veteran's current cervical spine or bilateral upper extremity neurological disabilities. Evidence including April 2015 and August 2020 VA examination reports and August 2020 private X rays indicates that he has current cervical spinal stenosis, discogenic disease, and osteoarthritis; and an August 2014 VA medical record reports numbness in both hands and January and February 2016 VA medical records indicate that he currently has neck pain with radicular symptoms including numbness of the left arm. In essence, bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy appears to be present. However, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the cervical spine disability and bilateral upper extremity disability currently shown were not manifest in service or within 1 year of separation, are unrelated to service, and are not caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service connected lumbar spine disability. Service treatment records do not reflect any cervical spine or upper extremity neurological problems. The Veteran denied pertinent symptomatology during his April 1998 retirement examination, and his cervical spine and upper extremities were normal at that time. The first report of any cervical spine or upper extremity neurological problems was in 2005. In April 2005, upper extremity radiculopathy was reported. In May 2005, the Veteran was seen for left sided radicular neck pain after working on his vehicle and feeling a pop with subsequent pain and tingling down his left arm. He was felt to have a bulging cervical intervertebral disc. In September 2005, cervical disc disease was reported. Cervical stenosis is reported in an April 2015 VA examination report; and at that time, the Veteran reported radiation into his left arm since the early 2000's, rather than since service. Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that the Veteran's cervical spine disability and bilateral upper extremity neurological disability were not incurred in service or related to any incidents therein. There is no evidence of complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of neck or upper extremity disabilities in service. The probative evidence of record shows that both conditions were diagnosed several years after the Veteran's active service ended. Additionally, there is no competent evidence indicating that the Veteran's cervical spine disability is caused or aggravated by his service connected lumbar spine disability. VA examiners in April 2015 and August 2020 opined that the Veteran's cervical spine disability was not likely proximately due to or the result of his service-connected back disability. The VA examiner in April 2015 indicated that cervical stenosis is not known to be caused by lumbar pathology, and that it was well documented how the cervical injury occurred in a May 2005 note. The VA examiner in August 2020 explained that there is no objective evidence to support a causal link between the Veteran's cervical spine disability and his service connected lumbar spine disability. He reasoned that the cervical spine pain and symptoms are consistent with cervical stenosis and mild discogenic change, mild osteoarthritis, and posttraumatic dystrophic calcification of the posterior or nuchal ligament at C5 and C6 by X ray. Additionally, the August 2020 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's cervical spine disability is not aggravated by his lumbar spine disability. He specifically found that there is no sufficient medical evidence to support such a finding. He further noted that cervical stenosis had been present since February 2015. These cumulative opinions are supported by adequate rationale and are based on examination of the Veteran, a review of the claims file, the Veteran's lay statements, and the examiner's medical expertise. The VA medical opinions are also consistent with the Veteran's in-service and post-service medical records, which show an onset of these conditions many years after service. Thus, the cumulative opinions are deemed highly probative. Further, VA treatment records dated in March 2006 and July 2015, and private treatment records dated in April and May 2005, indicate that the Veteran's bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy is related to his cervical spine disability, for which service connection has been denied. As such, service connection for this disability is not warranted. Increased Ratings Disability ratings are based upon VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities as set forth in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155. The disability must be viewed in relation to its history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. A higher evaluation shall be assigned where the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In cases where the original rating assigned is appealed, consideration must be given to whether a higher rating is warranted at any point during the pendency of the claim. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary importance. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994). Nevertheless, where the evidence contains factual findings that show a change in the severity of symptoms during the course of the rating period on appeal, assignment of staged ratings would be permissible. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). When determining the severity of musculoskeletal disabilities, which are at least partly rated on the basis of range of motion, VA must consider the extent of additional functional impairment a Veteran may have above and beyond the limitation of motion objectively demonstrated due to pain, limited or excess movement, weakness, incoordination, and premature or excess fatigability, etc., particularly when symptoms "flare up," to include periods of prolonged use, and assuming these factors are not already contemplated in the governing rating criteria. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59; Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 31-35 (2017); DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 206 (1995). Painful, unstable, or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, are entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. A rating in excess of 20 percent for lumbosacral strain with intervertebral disc syndrome and spinal stenosis prior to September 5, 2018 and from January 1, 2019 The Veteran appeals for a higher rating for his service connected lumbosacral spine disability, which is evaluated as 20 percent disabling prior to September 5, 2018 and from January 1, 2019 under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5243 for intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS). While portions of the rating schedule addressing the musculoskeletal system were revised effective February 7, 2021, this diagnostic code was not changed. Under both the former and revised rating criteria, IVDS is to be rated either under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine or under the Formula for Rating IVDS Based on Incapacitating Episodes, whichever method results in the higher rating when all disabilities are combined under 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5243 (2020); 85 Fed. Reg. 76,453 (November 30, 2020). Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a's General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, a 20 percent rating is warranted when forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. A 40 percent rating is warranted when there is forward flexion of thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less; or favorable ankylosis of his entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent rating is warranted when there is unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. The Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome based on Incapacitating Episodes provides: With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least six weeks during the past 12 months.......................................................................................................60 With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least four weeks but less than six weeks during the past 12 months.............................................................40 With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least two weeks but less than four weeks during the past 12 months...........................................................20 NOTE (1) indicates that an incapacitating episode is one a period of acute signs and symptoms due to intervertebral disc syndrome that requires bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. The Board finds that a rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted for either time period. To merit the next higher rating of 40 percent under the General Rating Formula, there must either be forward flexion of 30 degrees or less, or favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. None of the objectively measured ranges of motion noted upon VA examination meet this standard. At the time of the April 2015 VA examination, the Veteran's forward flexion of his thoracolumbar spine was to 60 degrees, well beyond 30 degrees, and there was no objective evidence of painful motion. His extension backwards was to 20 degrees. His right and left lateral flexion and rotation were to 30 degrees or greater. The results were the same after repetitive-use testing. The results were essentially the same and did not show that the higher rating criteria were met on VA examination in September 2016, when thoracolumbar spine forward flexion was limited to 65 degrees and extension was limited to 15 degrees, and September 2017, when thoracolumbar spine forward flexion was limited to 55 degrees and extension was limited to 15 degrees. At the time of the VA examination in August 2020, forward flexion was limited to 70 degrees and extension was limited to 20 degrees. No VA examiner found ankylosis and no difference in range of motion on repetitive-use testing. The Board's March 2019 Remand determined that the September 2017 examination was inadequate because it did not satisfy the requirements of Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). Notably, the August 2020 examination report indicates that the Veteran denied flare-ups and therefore the examiner did not offer an estimation of functional impairment on flare-up. The Board also finds that a rating higher than 20 percent the IVDS formula is not warranted for either time period. The VA examiners in September 2016, September 2017, and August 2020 indicated that the Veteran has IVDS, but that he does not have any episodes of acute signs and symptoms due to intervertebral disc syndrome that required bedrest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician in the past 12 months. The Board has considered whether the Veteran's back disability results in functional loss. It is not disputed that he has limitation of motion of the lumbar spine and chronic back pain. Although the April 2015 examiner noted no evidence of painful motion during range of motion testing, the September 2016, September 2017, and August 2020 VA examiners noted objective evidence of pain during range of motion testing. The August 2020 examiner found no functional loss. While the point at which pain began during the September 2016 and September 2017 VA examinations is unclear, joint pain alone, including pain throughout the entire range of motion, but without evidence of decreased functioning ability, does not warrant a higher rating. Even considering the Veteran's reports of pain, the fact remains he has motion in his lumbar spine up to 55 degrees flexion, which is greater than the required finding for a 40 percent rating based on limitation of motion. There is no objective evidence to demonstrate that pain after repeated use or during flare ups results in additional functional limitation to the extent that the symptoms more nearly approximate the disability picture of favorable ankylosis of the thoracolumbar spine or forward flexion to 30 degrees or less. Therefore, the Board finds that even when considering any functional limitations due to pain, the Veteran's functional loss does not equate to the criteria required for a 40 percent rating. Based on the above, the Board finds that the back disability has not been manifested by symptomatology or findings more nearly approximating the criteria for an initial rating in excess of 20 percent under DC 5243 prior to September 5, 2018 and from January 1, 2019. Additionally, the evidence including the August 2017, September 2017, and August 2020 VA examination reports indicates that there are no other neurological abnormalities related to the Veteran's service connected lumbosacral strain with intervertebral disc syndrome and stenosis aside from the service-connected lower extremity radiculopathy, and so no other ratings can be assigned pursuant to NOTE 1 to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a's General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine. An initial compensable rating for surgical scar, lumbar spine Under relevant parts of 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, a compensable rating can be assigned for a scar if it is unstable or painful or has an area or areas of at least 6 square inches (39 sq. cm). There is no medical or lay evidence that the scar meets the criteria for a 10 percent rating under any of the applicable diagnostic codes. The August 2020 VA examination report shows that the Veteran's lower back scar is not painful or unstable and that it is 3.5 x 1 cm. There is also no evidence of limitation of motion or function attributable to the scar. It does not meet any of the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118 for a compensable rating. An initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy prior to June 19, 2017 and in excess of 20 percent from that date An initial rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Codes 8520 and 8620, which are for the sciatic nerve, a 10 percent rating is warranted for mild sciatic nerve incomplete paralysis, a 20 percent rating is warranted for moderate incomplete paralysis, a 40 percent rating is warranted for moderately severe incomplete paralysis, and a 60 percent rating is warranted for severe incomplete paralysis, with marked muscular atrophy. An 80 percent rating is provided for complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve: the foot dangles and drops, no active movement possible of muscles below the knee, flexion of knee weakened or (very rarely) lost. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating should be for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree. The term "incomplete paralysis" indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type pictured for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.123 indicate that neuritis characterized by loss of reflexes, muscle atrophy, sensory disturbances, and constant pain, at times excruciating, is to be rated on the scale provided for injury of the nerve involved, with a maximum equal to severe incomplete paralysis. The maximum rating which may be assigned for neuritis not characterized by organic changes will be that for moderate, or with sciatic nerve involvement, for moderately severe incomplete paralysis. Based on the evidence, the Board concludes that prior to June 19, 2017, a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted for the Veteran's service connected right lower extremity radiculopathy. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that prior to June 19, 2017, he did not have moderate or more incomplete paralysis of his right lower extremity sciatic nerve. At the time of the April 2015 and September 2016 VA examinations, the Veteran had 5/5 muscle strength in his right lower extremity, and there was no muscle atrophy. His reflexes were all normal, as was sensory. And in April 2015, the Veteran had no radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy. Furthermore, on VA outpatient treatment in April 2015, he was said to have mild neurogenic claudication. And on VA outpatient treatment in January 2016, the Veteran reported that he had progressive limitation in walking, and that he was now limited to about half a block of walking with pain radiating down his right leg, but he had quite good neurological functioning. He was graded as having mild neurogenic claudication. In September 2016, he had no right lower extremity constant pain, and mild right lower extremity intermittent pain, paresthesias, and/or dysesthesias, and numbness. The examiner graded the severity of the radiculopathy as mild on the right, rather than as moderate or higher. On VA outpatient treatment outpatient treatment in May 2017, the Veteran denied sensory and motor disturbances and was neurologically normal. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Veteran did not have moderate or more incomplete paralysis of his right sciatic nerve prior to June 19, 2017. Based on the evidence, the Board also concludes that from June 19, 2017, a rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted for the Veteran's service connected right lower extremity radiculopathy. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that from June 19, 2017, the Veteran does not have moderately severe or more incomplete paralysis of his right lower extremity sciatic nerve. On VA examination in August 2017, the Veteran had moderate right lower extremity constant pain, and no right lower extremity intermittent pain. He had moderate right lower extremity paresthesias, and/or dysesthesias and numbness. His right lower extremity muscle strength and reflexes were normal, and sensory was normal at the right upper anterior thigh and decreased instead of absent at the right thigh/knee, lower leg/ankle, and foot/toes. There were no trophic changes and the Veteran's gait was normal. The September 2017 VA examination report shows that the Veteran's right lower extremity muscle strength was normal, and that his reflexes were 1+ at the knee, rather than absent, and absent at the ankle. Sensory examination was normal in the right upper anterior thigh and decreased instead of absent at the right thigh/knee, lower leg/ankle, and foot/toes. On VA examination in August 2020, the Veteran had normal right lower extremity function, he did not have any radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy, and his right sciatic nerve was graded as not affected. No evidence shows moderately severe or more incomplete paralysis of the right lower extremity's sciatic nerve at any time from June 19, 2017. Next, based on the evidence, the Board concludes that a rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted for the Veteran's service connected left lower extremity radiculopathy during any part of the rating period. The preponderance of the evidence including the April 2015, September 2016, August 2017, September 2019, and August 2020 VA examination reports indicates that the Veteran does not have moderately severe or more incomplete paralysis of his left lower extremity sciatic nerve. On VA outpatient treatment in April 2015, the Veteran was said to have mild neurogenic claudication. At the time of the April 2015 and September 2016 VA examinations, the Veteran had 5/5 muscle strength in his left lower extremity, and there was no muscle atrophy. His reflexes were all normal, as was sensory. And in April 2015, the Veteran had no radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy. On VA outpatient treatment outpatient treatment in January 2016, the Veteran reported that he had progressive limitation in walking, and that he was now limited to about half a block of walking with pain radiating down his left leg, but he had quite good neurological functioning. He was again graded as having mild neurogenic claudication. In September 2016, he had no left lower extremity constant pain, and moderate left lower extremity intermittent pain, paresthesias, and/or dysesthesias, and numbness. The VA examiner graded the severity of the radiculopathy as moderate on the left, rather than moderately severe or higher. On VA examination in August 2017, the Veteran had moderate left lower extremity constant pain, no left lower extremity intermittent pain, and moderate left lower extremity paresthesias, and/or dysesthesias and numbness. His left lower extremity muscle strength and reflexes were normal, and his sensory was normal at the left upper anterior thigh and decreased instead of absent at the left thigh/knee, lower leg/ankle, and foot/toes. There were no trophic changes and the Veteran's gait was normal. The September 2017 VA examination results were similar, and the examiner graded the Veteran as having moderate left lower extremity radiculopathy. On VA examination in August 2020, the Veteran did not have any radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy and the left sciatic nerve was graded as not affected. The Veteran's wife's and daughter's July 2017 statements, including to the effect that the Veteran has severe pain in his back and down his legs and ankles to the point where he has to lean forward on walking after getting up from a sitting position, have been considered. However, the Board finds these statements too vague to support a higher rating for any of the disabilities at issue. The Veteran contends that the July 2015 VA examiner could not have thoroughly addressed the issues and complaints he was claiming. See September 2015 Notice of Disagreement. However, he did not specify what relevant matters the examiner did not address, and subsequent examinations were performed with essentially the same results without complaint from the Veteran. The Board finds that the VA examinations were adequate because the examiners considered and addressed the Veteran's contentions, reviewed the claims file in conjunction with the examinations, and conducted thorough medical examinations of the Veteran. All of the other evidence has been considered, including current private medical reports, but there is no information in it that changes the outcome of the appeals. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claims and there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved in the Veteran's favor concerning them. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1991). Entitlement to TDIU prior to Jun 21, 2017, due to service-connected disabilities As indicated in the introduction, the Board retains jurisdiction for the claim of TDIU prior to June 21, 2017. See Harper v. Wilkie, supra. The period on appeal for TDIU is from one year prior to the date of increased rating claim, here February 10, 2015. Therefore, the relevant period before the Board is from February 10, 2015 until June 20, 2017. The Veteran's service-connected disabilities during this time period include: other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder with depressive disorder rated as 50 percent disabling from February 18, 2016; lumbosacral strain with IVDS and spinal stenosis, rated as 20 percent disabling from February 26, 2007; radiculopathy of the left lower extremity rated as 20 percent disabling from February 10, 2015; patellofemoral syndrome, right knee, rated as 10 percent disabling; residuals of right ankle fracture with recurrent strains rated as 10 percent disabling from February 26, 2007; radiculopathy right lower extremity rated as 10 percent disabling from February 10, 2015; and tinnitus rated as 10 percent disabling from February 18, 2016. The Veteran's combined disability rating is 60 percent from February 10, 2015 and 80 percent from February 18, 2016. Thus, the schedular requirements for TDIU have been met from February 18, 2016, but no earlier.). The Veteran concedes that he was employed until June 21, 2017. There is no evidence, to include lay assertion, that his employment was marginal for any portion of the appeal. Therefore, TDIU prior to June 21, 2017 is not warranted. In rendering this determination, the Board emphasizes that per the Veteran's own application for TDIU, he was not rendered too disabled to work until 2017. Rebecca N. Poulson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Lawson 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.