Citation Nr: 21070385 Decision Date: 11/23/21 Archive Date: 11/23/21 DOCKET NO. 13-10 675 DATE: November 23, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating prior to April 12, 2018, and in excess of 10 percent thereafter for allergic rhinitis is denied. Entitlement to a 30 percent rating, but no higher, from October 18, 2010, for left shoulder osteoarthritis (left shoulder disability) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to April 12, 2018, the Veteran's allergic rhinitis was not manifested by greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. 2. From April 12, 2018, the Veteran's allergic rhinitis was not manifested by polyps. 3. From October 18, 2010, the Veteran's left shoulder disability most nearly approximates motion limited to 25 degrees from the side. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a compensable rating prior to April 12, 2018, and in excess of 10 percent thereafter for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522 (2020). 2. The criteria for a 30 percent rating, but no higher, from October 18, 2010, for left shoulder disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 5003-5201 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from October 1981 to June 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2016. A transcript of the hearing is of record. This matter has a lengthy procedural history. Most recently, this matter was last remanded in July 2021. The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with its July 2021 remand directives. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); see also Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (holding that there was no Stegall (Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998)) violation when the examiner made the ultimate determination required by the Board's remand.) Increased Rating Disability evaluations are determined by application of the criteria set forth in the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on average impairment in earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (2020). When a question arises as to which of two ratings apply under a particular diagnostic code, the higher rating is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where entitlement to compensation already has been established and 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, in Fenderson, the Court noted an important distinction between an appeal involving a Veteran's disagreement with the initial rating assigned at the time a disability is service connected. Where the question for consideration is the propriety of the initial rating assigned, evaluation of the medical evidence since the effective date of the grant of service connection to consider the appropriateness of "staged rating" (i.e., assignment of different ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts found) is required. See Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126; see also Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The descriptive words "slight," "moderate" and "severe" as used in the various Diagnostic Codes are not defined in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Rather than applying a mechanical formula, the Board must evaluate all of the evidence for "equitable and just decisions." 38 C.F.R. § 4.6. 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating prior to April 12, 2018, and in excess of 10 percent thereafter for allergic rhinitis The Veteran contends that higher ratings are warranted for his allergic rhinitis. He is rated as noncompensable prior to April 12, 2018, and 10 percent disabling thereafter under Diagnostic Code 6522. Under Diagnostic Code 6522, a compensable rating of 10 percent is warranted for allergic rhinitis without polyps, but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both side or complete obstruction on one side. A 30 percent rating is warranted for allergic rhinitis with polyps. Diagnostic Code 6522 does not contain provisions for a zero percent evaluation; however, in every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. Prior to April 12, 2018 In a May 2017 VA treatment record, the Veteran complained of nasal congestion for years. He said it was getting worse and he had year-round allergies. On examination, his bilateral nasal passages were patent and his sinuses were nontender to palpation. From April 12, 2018 In a May 2018 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his symptoms of sneezing, runny nose with clear liquid, stuffy nose, itching of the palate, postnasal drip, and fatigue were constant and worsened if he was around rugs or bed sheets with dust mites. He said due to his allergic rhinitis he was unable to sweep or do chores at home. He said he had not had any change in symptoms since 2016. On examination, the examiner determined that the Veteran did not have the following: greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides; complete obstruction on the left or right side due to rhinitis; permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates; nasal polyps; or a granulomatous condition. There was no other evidence of complications, conditions, signs or symptoms related to the Veteran's allergic rhinitis. In a June 2018 statement, the Veteran said that he forgot to mention to the VA examiner that his congestion worsened when he lied down to sleep and interfered with the use of his CPAP. He said the congestion forced him to breathe through his mouth. In the July 2018 notice of disagreement, the Veteran argued that he suffered from 50 percent blockage of nasal passage at night when he went to sleep. VA treatment records show that the Veteran used a nasal inhalant spray into each nostril one time each day for his allergies. In the June 2019 VA Form 9, the Veteran said that if he lied down on his right side then the right nostril would be blocked and same with his left side. In an April 2021 VA examination, the Veteran said since about 1997 he had suffered from congestion when laying down. He said his congestion was worse at night and consisted of itchy eyes and sneezing. He also said he was not currently taking any medication and that he was unable to properly rest because he cannot use his CPAP since he has to breathe through his mouth. On examination, the examiner concluded that the Veteran had greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to rhinitis. The examiner did not make any other findings of complete obstruction, hypertrophy, nasal polyps, or granulomatous conditions. Additional post-service treatment records do not show any evidence that would warrant a compensable rating prior to April 12, 2018, or a rating in excess of 10 percent thereafter. Overall, the Board finds that higher ratings are not warranted. Here, prior to April 12, 2018, there is no evidence of any nasal blockage amounting to 50 percent obstruction on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. There are no records of complaints of allergic rhinitis symptoms until May 2017, when the Veteran said his symptoms had worsened and he had year-round allergies. On examination, his nasal passages were patent. In fact, the Veteran himself did not assert that he suffered from any obstruction until July 2018. The Board acknowledges that at the April 2021 VA examination, the Veteran stated that he suffered from congestion when lying down since 1997; however, the Board cannot assume that this amounted to 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. Again, there are no medical records or lay evidence to suggest that the Veteran suffered from symptoms severe enough to warrant a higher rating prior to April 12, 2018. The Board can only make decisions based on the evidence on record, which do not amount to a higher compensable rating. From April 12, 2018, the Veteran consistently stated since July 2018, that he suffered from 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides. Additionally, at the April 2021 VA examination, the examiner determined that the Veteran also suffered from 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides. Therefore, a 10 percent disability rating is warranted. However, a maximum rating of 30 percent is not warranted. The criteria for a 30 percent rating require evidence of polyps. Nowhere in the record is there any evidence of polyps associated with the Veteran's allergic rhinitis. Given such, the criteria for a 30 percent rating are not satisfied. The Board has considered whether other diagnostic codes are applicable. The Veteran is rated under Diagnostic Code 6522, which is specific to allergic rhinitis. Because the Veteran is rated under a diagnostic code that is specific to the service-connected disability, he may not be rated by analogy under another diagnostic code even if doing so would result in a higher rating. See Copeland v. McDonald, 22 Vet. App. 333 (2015); Suttman v. Brown, 5. Vet. App. 127 (1993). As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable, and his claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Yancy v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 484, 495 (2016); Doucette v. Shulkin, 38 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). 2. Entitlement to a 30 percent rating, but no higher, from October 18, 2010, for left shoulder osteoarthritis (left shoulder disability) The Veteran contends that higher ratings are warranted for his left shoulder disability. He is rated as 20 percent disabling prior to October 18, 2010, and 30 percent disabling thereafter under Diagnostic Code 5003-5201. The record shows that the Veteran is right-handed, and thus, his left arm/shoulder is considered his minor arm for rating purposes. As of February 7, 2021, changes have been implemented to the musculoskeletal rating criteria. The Board notes the only change to Diagnostic Code 5003 is a change in the title to the code, indicating that the criteria apply to all types of degenerative arthritis other than post-traumatic. However, changes were made to Diagnostic Code 5201. Prior to the regulatory change, Diagnostic Code 5201 assigned a 20 percent rating for limitation of motion of the minor arm at shoulder level. To warrant a 30 percent rating, the evidence needed to demonstrate limitation of motion of the minor arm to 25 degrees from the side. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5201 (2020). The regulatory change amended the Diagnostic Code 5201 only to the extent that it defined "shoulder level" as flexion and/or abduction limited to 90 degrees, and "midway between the side and shoulder level" as flexion and/or abduction limited to 45 degrees. 85 Fed. Reg. 76453 (Nov. 30, 2020). Regulations define the normal range of motion for the shoulder as forward flexion from 0 to 180 degrees, abduction from 0 to 180 degrees, external rotation to 90 degrees, and internal rotation to 90 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate I. Prior to October 18, 2010 In a February 2008 VA treatment record, it was noted that the Veteran had a history of bilateral shoulder pain. Impression was "negative shoulders." The Board notes that the Veteran was afforded VA examinations for his left shoulder in January 2009, November 2010, January 2014, July 2017, May 2019, and April 2021. The Board acknowledges that all but for the April 2021 VA examination is inadequate in the sense that they ranged from not complying with the Court's holdings in DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995), Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), or did not consider the Veteran's lay statements per remand instruction. Regardless, the Board will use the adequate portions of these VA examinations. In a January 2009 VA examination, the Veteran was seen for his bilateral shoulder osteoarthritis. The Veteran complained of pain with all movements of his shoulders, right worse than the left. The pain was in the anterior and the superior shoulders bilaterally. He complained of pain at rest in the right shoulder and said he had a hard time finding a comfortable position to sleep at night. The Veteran said he was able to sleep on his left side without aggravating his left shoulder pain. He complained of associated bilateral stiffness and arm weakness. The Veteran denied swelling, instability, heat, redness, subluxation, or dislocation. Left shoulder flare ups were moderate in severity and occurred every 2 to 3 days and lasted for hours. Aggravating factors included prolonged use of his upper body and any strenuous activities. Alleviating factors included rest and medications. He denied any history of inflammatory arthritis or prosthetic devices. He said that he needed help dressing from his wife and had a limited ability to assist with household chores. Upon examination, the examiner noted tenderness to palpation of the anterior shoulders and the acromioclavicular joints bilaterally. Special tests were limited due to significant pain with any motion. There was no evidence of effusion, heat, redness, or instability. There was significant guarding of movement. There was no evidence of ankylosis or inflammatory arthritis. Range of motion showed left shoulder 0 to 45 degrees with pain throughout. Abduction was 0 to 95 degrees and pain occurred beyond 70 degrees bilaterally. External rotation was 0 to 60 degrees with pain occurring from 45 to 60 degrees. Internal rotation was 0 to 70 degrees with pain occurring from 55 to 70 degrees. On repetitive testing there was no additional limitation due to fatigability, weakness, or incoordination. Range of motion values were unchanged from baseline testing. The examiner stated that as the Veteran was not having a flare up it would only be speculation to report limitation during a flare up. In an August 2009 VA treatment record, the Veteran reported severe bilateral shoulder pain and said that he ran out of pain medication. He said he could not function without his pain medication. On examination, range of motion for the left shoulder was the following: flexion to 130 degrees; abduction not tested; external rotation to 78 degrees; and internal rotation to 68 degrees. The Veteran was assessed with making gradual progress with improvements in range of motion in both shoulders despite complaints of increased pain. The Veteran continued to have high reactivity that limited progression with physical therapy activities. From October 18, 2010 In an October 2010 statement, the Veteran said that his left shoulder condition had worsened. In a November 2010 VA examination, it was noted that the Veteran had not been hospitalized or had any surgery on his left shoulder. The Veteran's pain had become progressively worse over time and he was now losing range of motion. The Veteran reported constant posterior left shoulder pain and decreased range of motion. He had difficulty with elevation and overhead activities. Pain was exacerbated with any forward reaching, overhead activities, or elevation of the left upper extremity. He reported stiffness in his shoulder. There was no evidence of instability or subluxation episodes. There was no history of dislocations. He reported frequent spontaneous flare ups. During flare ups, the Veteran described sharp, stabbing pains through his left shoulder and he was "unable to range his shoulder." Flare ups were relieved with time and medications. There was no history of inflammatory arthritis. Treatments had included medications. The Veteran did not wear a sling and did not require any assistive devices. The Veteran said he was right hand and upper extremity dominant. On examination, there was no gross deformity of the shoulder. There was no evidence of ankylosis or inflammatory arthritis. There was also no evidence of abnormal weightbearing in the left upper extremity. There was tenderness to palpation with guarding in the posterior shoulder. Range of motion was the following: forward flexion to 30 degrees with pain at 30 degrees; abduction to 30 degrees with pain at 30 degrees; external rotation to 60 degrees with pain at 60 degrees; internal rotation to 0 degrees with pain attempted at 0 degrees. On repetitive range of motion testing, there were no limitations due to fatigue, weakness, or incoordination, and range of motion values were unchanged from baseline testing. There were positive impingement signs present in the left shoulder. In a November 2010 statement, the Veteran reported that the pain in his left shoulder had increased in severity the last "couple of months." He said that he had not seen a civilian doctor because he knew they would only give him more medication on top of what he was already taking. In a December 2010 VA treatment record, the Veteran complained of pain on range of motion in his left shoulder. In a June 2011 VA treatment record, the Veteran said he had left shoulder pain for months and that it had worsened the past 2 to 3 months. There was pain on abduction and when reaching behind his back. Pain was worse when lying on his left side. On examination, there was pain at 80 degrees on abduction. In the March 2013 VA Form 9, the Veteran said that when he was examined the doctor manipulated his arms into different positions that he would not normally be able to assume. He said his disability should warrant a 30 percent disability rating. In a January 2014 VA examination, the Veteran said that since his last shoulder examination his pain had worsened. The Veteran localized his pain as deep and characterized it as stabbing. At rest the pain was described as a 3 out of 10 and with activity it increased to a 7 to 8 out of 10. The Veteran said he tried physical therapy with mild improvement and continued home exercise. He took pain medications with mild relief. He had never had injections or surgery. The Veteran said he did not use any assistive devices. The Veteran was noted to be right hand dominant. The Veteran reported flare ups and described them as acute increases in his symptoms approximately two times per month. During this time his pain level increased without relation to activity. His flare ups improved with medications over 3 to 4 days. On examination, range of motion was the following: flexion to 50 degrees with evidence of painful motion to 35 degrees; abduction to 60 degrees with evidence of painful motion to 50 degrees. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing with 3 repetitions without additional limitation in range of motion. Functional loss consisted of less movement than normal and pain on movement. There was evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation as well as guarding. There was no evidence of ankylosis. The Veteran was positive for Hawkins' impingement test, empty-can test, external rotation/infraspinatus strength test, and lift-off subscapularis test. There was no history of mechanical symptoms or recurrent dislocation. The Veteran was unable to perform the crank apprehension and relocation test. There was evidence of AC joint arthritis as well as tenderness on palpation of the AC joint. The Veteran was positive for cross-body adduction test. In an addendum January 2014 VA opinion, the examiner said there was no way to give an objective number of degrees during the flare up as there were no flare ups noted at the time of the examination. Any attempt to estimate a number of degrees would therefore be speculative in nature. At the May 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his range of motion in his left shoulder had gotten worse. The Veteran and his representative stated that the range of motion was not more than 20 to 25 degrees. He said he is unable to move furniture because it is too painful and can only lift 15 pounds. He described his pain as an 8 out of 10 and did physical therapy exercises daily. He also took pain medication for his shoulder. In a March 2017 VA treatment record, both shoulders were examined. The VA physician found that range of motion was flexion to 120 degrees, external rotation to 60 degrees, abduction to 105 degrees, and adduction within normal limits. The Veteran's range of motion was restricted due to pain. In a July 2017 VA examination, the Veteran reported flare ups and functional loss, described as sharp pain. On examination, range of motion was the following: flexion to 45 degrees; abduction to 45 degrees; external rotation to 90 degrees; and internal rotation to 90 degrees. Range of motion itself contributed to functional loss. Pain was noted on exam at all ranges of motion but did not result in/cause functional loss. There was no evidence of pain with weight bearing. There was evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation to the AC joint. There was no evidence of crepitus. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing with at least 3 repetitions without additional functional loss or range of motion. The Veteran was not examined immediately after repetitive use over time and the examiner determined that the examination was neither medically consistent or inconsistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time. The examiner was unable to say without mere speculation whether pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over a period of time because the Veteran was neither having a flare up during the examination nor was the joint in question being used repetitively over a period of time. The Veteran was not examined during a flare up and the examiner determined that the examination was neither medically consistent or inconsistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss during flare ups. The examiner was unable to say without mere speculation whether pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination significantly limit functional ability with flare ups. The examiner again reasoned that the Veteran was neither having a flare up nor was the joint in question being used repetitively over a period of time. There was no evidence of muscle atrophy or ankylosis. Rotator cuff condition was suspected and the Veteran was positive on the hawkins' impingement test. There was evidence of shoulder instability, dislocation, or labral pathology suspected; however, there was no history of mechanical symptoms or recurrent dislocation. The Veteran was unable to perform the crank apprehension and relocation test. It was noted that the Veteran had an AC joint condition. However, the condition did not affect range of motion of the shoulder. It was noted that cross-body adduction test was positive. In a September 2017 VA treatment record, the Veteran complained of chronic bilateral shoulder pain, right worse than left. There was no history of shoulder dislocation or surgery. The last visit and evaluation were in June 2017 and it was noted that the bilateral shoulders had somewhat improved, so the Veteran was treated conservatively. In a May 2019 VA examination, the Veteran reported pain in his shoulder at a 7 out of 10 sitting still for about 10 to 12 years. He said he did not do much with the shoulder and the pain was a 6 to 8 every day. He did not report any known triggers, but he could not reach his back pocket so had started wearing his wallet in his front pocket. The Veteran did not report any flare ups. He described functional loss as being unable to "reach up." On examination, range of motion was the following: flexion to 150 degrees; abduction to 150 degrees; external rotation to 90 degrees; and internal rotation to 90 degrees. Range of motion itself did not contribute to functional loss. Pain was noted on exam at flexion and abduction but did not result in/cause functional loss. There was no evidence of pain with weight bearing. There was evidence of pain on palpation. There was no evidence of crepitus. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing with at least 3 repetitions without additional functional loss or range of motion. The Veteran was not examined immediately after repetitive use over time and the examiner determined that the examination was neither medically consistent or inconsistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time. 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 because the Veteran did not report this so the examiner could only speculate; the Veteran reported pain all the time without any triggers. There was no evidence of muscle atrophy or ankylosis. The examiner determined that a rotator cuff condition was not suspected. There was no evidence of instability, dislocation, or labral pathology. The Veteran was noted to have an AC joint condition of arthritis, which did not affect range of motion of the shoulder. There was tenderness on palpation of the AC joint and the Veteran's cross-body adduction test was positive. The examiner stated that the Veteran did not report any flares; he reported chronic pain without joint movement or with joint movement. The examiner further stated that the 2017 VA examiner did not address flares properly. So, therefore, the examiner could speculate that the Veteran presented the same account of no flares. The 2017 VA examiner marked "yes" for flares but then failed to clarify why and referred to text that did not substantiate flares; therefore, this was likely an error that "yes" was marked in 2017 for flares. The examiner concluded that there was pain on passive range of motion testing. There was no evidence of pain when the joint was used in non-weight bearing. In an April 2021 VA examination, the Veteran said that he could barely use his arms and was unable to do anything overhead by lifting his arms above his shoulders or lift or carry anything more than 2 pounds. He reported flare ups and said they lasted 1 to 2 days and were precipitated by overuse. These flare ups were alleviated by time and medication. The Veteran also reported functional loss as described above. On examination, range of motion was the following: flexion to 40 degrees; abduction to 45 degrees; internal rotation to 20 degrees; and external rotation to 10 degrees. Range of motion itself contributed to functional loss. Pain was noted at abduction, internal rotation, and external rotation. Passive range of motion findings were the following: flexion to 40 degrees; abduction to 45 degrees; internal rotation to 20 degrees; and external rotation to 10 degrees. Pain was noted on all ranges of motion. There was evidence of pain on weight bearing, active motion, and passive motion which caused functional loss. There was no evidence of crepitus. There was evidence of severe localized tenderness or pain on palpation. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing with at least 3 repetitions. Range of motion was the following: flexion to 35 degrees; abduction to 40 degrees; internal rotation to 20 degrees; and external rotation to 10 degrees. Pain, weakness, and lack of endurance caused functional loss. The Veteran was not examined immediately after repeated use over time and the examiner determined that pain, weakness, and lack of endurance significantly limited functional ability with repeated use over time. Range of motion was the following: flexion to 30 degrees; abduction to 35 degrees; internal rotation to 15 degrees; and external rotation to 10 degrees. The examination was not conducted during a flare up and the examiner determined that pain, weakness, and lack of endurance significantly limited functional ability with flare ups. Range of motion was the following: flexion to 25 degrees; abduction to 30 degrees; internal rotation to 10 degrees; and external rotation to 5 degrees. There was no evidence of muscle atrophy or ankylosis. Hawkins' impingement test, external rotation/infraspinatus strength test, lift-off subscapularis test were positive, and crank apprehension and relocation test were positive. There was no evidence of shoulder instability, dislocation, or labral pathology, or mechanical symptoms. Cross-body adduction test was positive. There was no tenderness on palpation of the AC joint. The examiner further stated that following review of the January 2009, November 2010, January 2014, and July 2017 VA examinations, including the May 2016 Board hearing, it could be determined that the Veteran's left arm range of motion most closely approximated limitation to 25 degrees from the side. Overall, the Board finds that a 30 percent rating, but no higher, is warranted for the Veteran's left shoulder disability from October 18, 2010. Here, based on the consistent and credible lay statements provided by the Veteran regarding the severity of his left arm disability and being unable to lift his arms over his head or perform daily activities without severe pain, along with the April 2021 VA examiner's findings that following review of the January 2009, November 2010, January 2014, and July 2017 VA examinations, as well as the May 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran's left arm range of motion most closely approximated limitation to 25 degrees from the side, the evidence is in equipoise whether the Veteran's left arm disability warrants a 30 percent disability rating. As a whole, the evidence shows the Veteran suffered from severe pain and functional limitations making it difficult to move his arm since the beginning of his appeal. The Board notes this is the maximum schedular rating for a non-dominant shoulder disability under Diagnostic Code 5201. The Board has considered other potentially applicable Diagnostic Codes in determining whether higher ratings are warranted; however, the Veteran's shoulder disability is not shown to involve any other factor or diagnosis that would warrant evaluation under any other provision of the rating schedule. The VA examination reports demonstrate the Veteran has no history of ankylosis, impairment of the humerus, or impairment of the clavicle or scapula that affected range of motion. Consequently, separate evaluations under Diagnostic Codes 5200, 5202, or 5203 would be inappropriate. As the evidence is in relative equipoise, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is applicable, and his claim must be granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Yancy, 27 Vet. App. at 495 (2016); Doucette, 38 Vet. App. at 369-70 (2017). MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Brown, Saudiee 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.