Citation Nr: 21070072 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-63 458 DATE: November 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for osteoarthritis of the right knee, prior to June 25, 2020, and to a rating higher than 30 percent, thereafter, is denied. Entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for osteoarthritis of the left knee, prior to June 25, 2020, and to a rating higher than 30 percent, thereafter, is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to June 25, 2020, the Veteran's right knee disability was manifested by limitation of extension to no more than 10 degrees; there is no evidence of flexion limited to 45 degrees or less, ankylosis, recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, impairment of the tibia and fibula, genu recurvatum, dislocated semilunar cartilage, or removal of semilunar cartilage. 2. From June 25, 2020, the Veteran's right knee disability is manifested by extension limited to no more than 20 degrees; there is no evidence of flexion limited to 45 degrees or less, ankylosis, recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, impairment of the tibia and fibula, genu recurvatum, dislocated semilunar cartilage, or removal of semilunar cartilage. 3. Prior to June 25, 2020, the Veteran's left knee disability was manifested by limitation of extension to no more than 10 degrees; there is no evidence of flexion limited to 45 degrees or less, ankylosis, recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, impairment of the tibia and fibula, genu recurvatum, dislocated semilunar cartilage, or removal of semilunar cartilage. 4. From June 25, 2020, the Veteran's left knee disability is manifested by extension limited to no more than 20 degrees; there is no evidence of flexion limited to 45 degrees or less, ankylosis, recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, impairment of the tibia and fibula, genu recurvatum, dislocated semilunar cartilage, or removal of semilunar cartilage. 5. The evidence of record is insufficient to determine that the Veteran is unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Prior to June 25, 2020, the criteria for a rating higher than 10 percent for the Veteran's right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5003, 5010, 5256-5263. 2. From June 25, 2020, the criteria for a rating higher than 30 percent for the Veteran's right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5003, 5010, 5256-5263. 3. Prior to June 25, 2020, the criteria for a rating higher than 10 percent for the Veteran's left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5003, 5010, 5256-5263. 4. From June 25, 2020, the criteria for a rating higher than 30 percent for the Veteran's left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5003, 5010, 5256-5263. 5. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from July 1979 to July 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from a June 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. The requested hearing was conducted in February 2020 by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is associated with the claims file. In April 2020, the Board remanded these claims for additional development. In an August 2020 rating decision, the RO granted an increased evaluation of 30 percent for each knee, effective June 2020. The issues remain on appeal, as the Veteran has not indicated satisfaction with the 30 percent ratings. A.B. v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). In a May 2021 Board remand, it was noted that the claims file indicated that the Veteran may not have received some correspondence. Although there is no returned mail in the file, as noted, the Veteran failed to respond to the request to complete a VA Form 21-8940, Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, to support his claim for entitlement to a TDIU, and DD Form 2870, Authorization for Disclosure of Medical or Dental Information, to obtain medical records the Veteran identified during the February 2020 Board hearing. Additionally, a February 2021 letter from the Board, sent to a different address than previously used by the RO, notes that the Veteran did not receive a copy of the April 2020 Board decision. The May 2021 Board remand directed the RO to confirm the Veteran's mailing address and to send him an additional VA Form 21-8940 and DD Form 2870 to complete. The RO confirmed the Veteran's mailing address and sent the Veteran additional forms in June 2021; however, the Veteran failed to complete the requested forms. The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with the remand directives. See Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-147. Increased Ratings 1. Entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for osteoarthritis of the right knee, prior to June 25, 2020, and to a rating higher than 30 percent, thereafter. 2. Entitlement to a rating higher than 10 percent for osteoarthritis of the left knee, prior to June 25, 2020, and to a rating higher than 30 percent, thereafter. The Veteran seeks entitlement to increased ratings for his bilateral knee disabilities. Disability ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluations will be assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In general, when an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). However, when the question for consideration is entitlement to a higher initial rating assigned following the grant of service connection, evaluation of the medical evidence since the effective date of the grant of service connection and consideration of the appropriateness of "staged rating" (assignment of different ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts found), is required. See Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126. The determination of whether an increased disability rating is warranted is to be based on a review of the entire evidence of record and the application of all pertinent regulations. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). In considering the severity of a disability, it is essential to trace the medical history of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. The Board has considered the entire record, including the Veteran's VA clinical records and private treatment records. These show complaints and treatment but will not be referenced in detail. The Federal Circuit has held that the Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, the Board will discuss the evidence pertinent to the rating criteria and the current disability. Service connection for patellofemoral pain syndrome of the left and right knee was granted in a March 2002 rating decision, at which time 10 percent ratings were assigned, effective August 2000. A claim for increased ratings was received in January 2016. In an August 2020 rating decision, the Veteran's disabilities were reclassified as osteoarthritis of the left and right knees, and ratings were increased to 30 percent, each, effective June 25, 2020. The Veteran's knee disabilities are currently rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261, for limitation of extension. Under Diagnostic Code 5261, a noncompensable rating is warranted for extension limited to 5 degrees. A 10 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 10 degrees. A 20 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 15 degrees. A 30 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 20 degrees. A 40 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 30 degrees. A 50 percent rating is warranted for extension limited to 45 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261. When evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities based on limitation of motion, 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 requires consideration of functional loss caused by pain or other factors listed in that section that could occur during flare-ups or after repeated use and therefore, not be reflected on range-of-motion testing. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 requires consideration also be given to less movement than normal, more movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 44 (2011). Nonetheless, even when the background factors listed in § 4.40 or 4.45 are relevant when evaluating a disability, the rating is assigned based on the extent to which motion is limited, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a; a separate or higher rating under § 4.40 or 4.45 itself is not appropriate. See Thompson v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[I]t is clear that the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran's disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria."). Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, painful motion is a factor to be considered with any form of arthritis; however, 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 is not limited to disabilities involving arthritis. See Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011). In Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), the Court held that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that the examiner record the results of range of motion testing "for pain on both active and passive motion [and] in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint." The spine has no opposite joint. In Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), the Court held that VA examiners must obtain information about the severity, frequency, duration, precipitating and alleviating factors, and extent of functional impairment of flares from the veterans themselves, when a flare-up is not observable at the time of examination. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2016. The Veteran reported increased level and frequency of pain. Flare-ups were reported as increased pain from squatting or after taking a knee. He indicated he was unable to run or jog. Range of motion was 10 degrees of extension and 130 degrees of flexion, bilaterally, with pain on motion. There was mild tenderness to palpation over the patella, bilaterally. There was no pain with weight bearing. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing with no additional loss of range of motion. The examiner opined that pain would significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over time and during flare-ups, resulting in a range of motion of 10 degrees extension and 130 degrees of flexion, bilaterally. Muscle strength was 5/5, bilaterally. There was no history of recurrent subluxation, lateral instability, or recurrent effusion. Joint stability testing was performed but did not demonstrate any instability. There were no meniscus conditions. The Veteran was noted to regularly use a flexible knee brace, bilaterally, for ambulation. The examiner noted that the Veteran's bilateral knee disability causes difficulty with prolonged standing and walking. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination April 2017. The Veteran reported the pain in his knees was worse and the pain was constant when bending his knees. He indicated he can no longer run. Range of motion was 0 degrees extension to 95 degrees flexion, bilaterally. There was no evidence of pain on weight bearing. The Veteran was able to complete repetitive use testing with no additional loss of range of motion. Muscle strength was normal. Joint stability testing was normal. There was no history of recurrent subluxation, lateral instability, or recurrent effusion. It was noted that the Veteran occasionally used a brace, bilaterally. It was noted that the Veteran reported he could not do the physical training part of his job and he feared he was going to lose his job. The examiner was unable to say without resort to speculation whether pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination significantly limited functional ability during flare-ups or with repeated use over time as the limitation of range of motion and functional ability will depend on the severity of flare-ups, degree of use over variable duration, intake of pain medications, and tolerance of pain; therefore, limitation of motion could not be quantified. A "mini-DBQ (disability benefit questionnaire)" was received in January 2020. The Veteran indicated that he experienced incoordination, weakened movement, easily fatigued, history of meniscal tear/dislocation, swelling, pain on movement, less movement than normal and knee locking. The Veteran testified in February 2020 that he was terminated from his previous employment because he was unable to complete the required physical readiness test due to his knees. He testified that he is able to go down to his knees but is unable to get back up. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2020. He reported bilateral knee pain, right knee slightly worse than the left. He reported frequent flare-ups of severe, sharp, or achy pain and difficulty squatting, climbing stairs, and getting up from kneeling or sitting. Range of motion was 10 degrees of extension and 80 degrees of flexion, bilaterally. There was evidence of pain when nonweight-bearing, bilaterally, and passive range of motion was the same as active. He was unable to squat fully. There was pain on flexion and extension. The Veteran had tenderness to palpation of the anterior knee, bilaterally. There was no objective evidence of pain on weight bearing. The veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing, bilaterally, with no additional loss of range of motion. The examiner opined that pain would significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over time and during flare-ups, resulting in a range of motion of 20 degrees extension and 70 degrees flexion. Muscle strength testing was normal. Joint stability tests were normal. There were no meniscal conditions. The Veteran was noted to constantly use a brace, bilaterally. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2021. The Veteran reported his knees are aggravated and painful with walking, bending, and going up stairs. He is not able to sustain prolonged standing or walking without severe pain. The Veteran reported that painful episodes can last for one hour and are usually triggered by frequent changing of position from sitting to standing; episodes can occur multiple times a day and can occur daily depending on if he has to walk for lengthy periods at a time. Daily flare-ups were reported, lasting 30 minutes to one hour, with sharp pain caused by prolonged standing or walking. He reported an inability to bend his knees. Range of motion was 120 degrees of flexion and 0 degrees of extension, with pain at the endpoints, bilaterally. Passive range of motion was the same as active. There was evidence of pain on weight bearing, nonweight bearing, active motion, and passive motion. There was localized tenderness to palpation of the patella, bilaterally. He was able to perform repetitive use testing with no additional loss of range of motion. The examiner opined that pain would significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over time, resulting in a range of motion of 0 degrees extension and 110 degrees flexion. The examiner opined that pain would significantly limit functional ability during flare-ups, resulting in a range of motion of 0 degrees extension and 90 degrees flexion, bilaterally. There was no recurrent subluxation or persistent instability, no ligament tears, no recurrent patellar instability, no meniscal conditions, and no surgeries performed. It was noted he constantly used a brace, bilaterally. The examiner opined that occupational tasks which require prolonged sitting, standing, or walking longer than 10 minutes would likely have a negative impact on the veteran's ability to function in the workplace. Prior to June 2020 As noted, prior to June 25, 2020, the Veteran is rated as 10 percent disabled under Diagnostic Code 5261 for limitation of extension of each knee. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a rating higher than 10 percent, prior to June 2020, for either knee. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms and that there was functional loss due to pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, repetitive use, pain during flare-ups, and pain during repetitive use over time, etc. However, even considering the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms and noted functional loss, the degree of additional limitation reflected by the statements would not result in limitation of motion of extension to at least 15 degrees, to more nearly approximate a rating higher than 10 percent. Here, medical evidence indicates that prior to June 2020, the most the Veteran's flexion was limited, even considering repetitive use, flare-ups, pain, and other limiting factors, was 10 degrees, bilaterally. The Board has also considered the other Diagnostic Codes pertaining to the knee and leg. Other disability ratings may be assigned only if the symptomatology for a disability is not duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of any other disability. See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994); Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 107 (2017) (holding that 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 prohibits paying compensation twice for the same symptoms or functional impairment). Diagnostic Code 5256 (ankylosis), Diagnostic Code 5257 (recurrent subluxation or lateral instability), Diagnostic Code 5258 (dislocated semilunar cartilage), Diagnostic Code 5259 (symptomatic removal of semilunar cartilage), Diagnostic Code 5262 (impairment of the tibia and fibula), and Diagnostic Code 5263 (genu recurvatum) are not applicable as there is no evidence of these medical conditions throughout the course of the appeal. Regarding Diagnostic Code 5260, a compensable rating is warranted when flexion is actually or functionally limited to 45 degrees. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a separate compensable rating for limitation of flexion, bilaterally, prior to June 2020. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms and that there was functional loss due to pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, repetitive use, pain during flare-ups, and pain during repetitive use over time, etc. However, even considering the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms and noted functional loss, the degree of additional limitation reflected by the statements would not result in limitation of motion of flexion to 45 degrees or less to more nearly approximate a compensable rating. Here, medical evidence indicates that prior to June 2020, the most the Veteran's flexion was limited, even considering repetitive use, flare-ups, pain, and other limiting factors, was 95 degrees, bilaterally. Therefore, a separate rating under Diagnostic Code 5260 for limitation of flexion, bilaterally, for this time period is not warranted. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim for ratings higher than 10 percent, bilaterally, prior to June 2020. In denying such a rating, the Board finds the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. From June 2020 As noted, from June 2020, the Veteran is rated as 30 percent disabled, for each knee, under Diagnostic Code 5261. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a rating higher than 30 percent, bilaterally. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms and that there was functional loss due to pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, repetitive use, pain during flare-ups, and pain during repetitive use over time, etc. However, even considering the Veteran's lay reports of symptoms and noted functional loss, the degree of additional limitation reflected by the statements would not result in limitation of motion of extension to 30 degrees to warrant a higher rating of 40 percent. Here, medical evidence indicates that from June 2020, the most the Veteran's extension was limited, even considering repetitive use, flare-ups, pain, and other limiting factors, was 20 degrees, bilaterally, which corresponds to a 30 percent rating. The Board has also considered the other Diagnostic Codes pertaining to the knee and leg. Other disability ratings may be assigned only if the symptomatology for a disability is not duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of any other disability. See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994); Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 107 (2017) (holding that 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 prohibits paying compensation twice for the same symptoms or functional impairment). Diagnostic Code 5256 (ankylosis), Diagnostic Coe 5257 (instability), Diagnostic Code 5258 (dislocated semilunar cartilage), Diagnostic Code 5259 (symptomatic removal of semilunar cartilage), Diagnostic Code 5262 (impairment of the tibia and fibula), and Diagnostic Code 5263 (genu recurvatum) are not applicable as there is no evidence of these medical conditions throughout the course of the appeal. Regarding Diagnostic Code 5260, a compensable rating is warranted for flexion actually or functionally limited to 45 degrees. From the period from June 2020, although limited by pain, the Veteran's flexion was not limited to the degree to warrant a compensable rating. Medical evidence indicates that from June 2020, the most the Veteran's flexion was limited, even considering repetitive use, flare-ups, pain, and other limiting factors, was 70 degrees. Although separate ratings may be assigned for assigned for limitation of motion of extension and flexion, the Board notes that for this period of time, the Veteran is currently receiving a compensable rating for limitation of extension, and therefore, a separate rating under Diagnostic Code 5260 for painful, noncompensable limitation of flexion is not warranted. In conclusion, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim for ratings higher than 30 percent for each knee disability, for this time period. In denying such a rating, the Board finds the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. TDIU 3. Entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran seeks entitlement to a TDIU. Without regard to advancing age or impairment due to nonservice-connected disabilities, if the schedular rating is less than total, a TDIU rating can be assigned based on individual unemployability if a Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disability(ies); provided that he has one service-connected disability rated at 60 percent or higher; or two or more service-connected disabilities, with one disability rated at 40 percent or higher and the combined rating is 70 percent or higher. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). If a Veteran fails to meet the percentage standards set forth in § 4.16(a) but is unemployable by reason of service-connected disabilities, the claim may be submitted for extraschedular consideration. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). In evaluating total disability, full consideration must be given to unusual physical or mental effects in individual cases, to peculiar effects of occupational activities, to defects in physical or mental endowment preventing the usual amount of success in overcoming the handicap of disability and to the effects of combinations of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.15. Marginal employment shall not be considered substantially gainful employment. Consideration shall be given in all claims to the nature of employment and the reason for termination. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. An award of TDIU does not require a showing of 100 percent unemployability. See Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1385 (2001). The central inquiry is whether a Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to render the Veteran unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Unlike the regular disability rating schedule, which is based on the average work-related impairment caused by a disability, "entitlement to TDIU is based on an individual's particular circumstances." Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2009). Therefore, a TDIU analysis must take into account the individual Veteran's education, training, and work history. Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164, 168 (1991); see Friscia v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 294, 295-97 (1994); Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532, 534 (1994); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356, 357 (1991). The phrase "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" in § 4.16 (b) has both an economic and a noneconomic component. Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 72 (2019). The economic component means an occupation earning more than marginal income outside of a protected environment. Id. The noneconomic component concerns whether the veteran is able to "secure or follow" gainful employment. Id. In determining whether a veteran can secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation, the Board should consider the veteran's history, education, skill, and training; whether he or she "has the physical ability (both exertional and nonexertional) to perform the type of activities (e.g., sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy) required" to work in a substantially gainful occupation, and "whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required" to work in a substantially gainful occupation. Id. Currently, the Veteran's sleep apnea is rated as 50 percent disabling, effective April 2015. The Veteran also has a rating of 10 percent for the right and left knees, prior to June 2020, and 30 percent, thereafter; 10 percent for tinnitus, effective August 2000; and a noncompensable rating for erectile dysfunction. He has a combined rating of 30 percent from August 31, 2000, 70 percent from April 22, 2015, and 80 percent from June 25, 2020. As such, the Veteran met the schedular criteria for a TDIU rating, effective April 22, 2015, for the entire period on appeal. As discussed in the May 2021 Board remand, the Veteran did not complete a VA Form 21-8940, which was sent to him in August 2020. As noted in the May 2021 remand, the claims file indicated that the Veteran may not have received some correspondence. Although there is no returned mail in the file, as noted, the Veteran failed to respond to the request for completion of the form, and a February 2021 letter from the Board, sent to a different address than previously used by the RO, notes that the Veteran did not receive a copy of the April 2020 Board decision. The May 2021 Board remand directed the RO to confirm the Veteran's mailing address and to send him an additional VA Form 21-8940 to complete. The RO confirmed the Veteran's mailing address and sent the Veteran a VA Form 21-8940 in June 2021, as a follow-up to the original TDIU form sent in August 2020. A copy of these forms was also sent to the Veteran's representative in August 2020 and June 2021. The Veteran failed to respond to the June 2021 request for information. To date, despite multiple opportunities to provide the requested information, the Veteran has not completed and returned a TDIU claim form. While failure to complete the form is not fatal to a TDIU claim in and of itself, failure to do so deprives VA of accurate information as to the Veteran's employment history, educational history and training, and income information necessary to address a claim for TDIU. In the absence of the information requested from the Veteran, the Board must make a decision on the information of record. Unfortunately, however, the evidence of record is insufficient to determine that the Veteran was unable to secure or follow substantially gainfully employment. The Veteran testified in February 2020 that he was terminated from his previous job because he was unable to perform a physical readiness test due to his knees. A June 2020 VA examination indicates the Veteran reported working as a Department of Defense police officer from February 2002 until December 2019 and that he has worked in the armory since December 2019. A September 2020 VA outpatient notes indicates the Veteran reported he worked as a Department of Defense police officer on base, but now has a desk job. A July 2021 VA examination notes the Veteran reported he lost his job with the military police when his "knees got really bad and now works in the armory." While the evidence reflects that the Veteran's disabilities cause occupational impairment, the Board is unable to determine from the current record if the Veteran's disabilities render the Veteran unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. The Board does not doubt that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities cause impairing symptomatology. Importantly, however, because the Veteran did not provide the requested VA Form 21-8940, the Veteran's file lacks complete information about the Veteran's educational history and employment history. There is no specific evidence of when/if the Veteran became unemployed, and there is limited information regarding his past employment experience and educational background. There is no information provided as to whether the Veteran's employment was gainful or not for the applicable periods of time. While the RO has tried to obtain additional evidence, neither the Veteran nor his representative has provided it. In sum, the Veteran failed to cooperate with VA's attempts to develop the claim on multiple occasions, and the record that is before the Board is insufficient to determine that the Veteran was unable to secure or follow substantially gainfully employment as a result of his service-connected disabilities. The duty to assist a Veteran in the development of evidence pertinent to a claim is not a "one-way street." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Thus, the claim for a TDIU must be denied. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Andersen, 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.