Citation Nr: 21071417 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 14-38 267 DATE: November 30, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for neuritis of the right common peroneal nerve is denied. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) prior to June 9, 2021 is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The severity of Veteran's neuritis of the right common peroneal nerve has not more nearly approximated moderate incomplete paralysis. 2. The Veteran's hearing loss has been manifested by no more than a Level I impairment in his right ear and a Level VII impairment in his left ear. 3. The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not preclude him from obtaining or maintaining gainful employment prior to June 9, 2021. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected neuritis of the right common peroneal nerve have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 5271-8621. 2. The criteria for a compensable disability rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. 3. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU prior to June 9, 2021 have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1973 to September 1993. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from January 2014 and March 2014 rating decisions. Of the Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The appeal was previously before the Board in July 2018 and March 2020, where it remanded for further development. It now returns for additional appellate review. The Veteran testified at a video-conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2017. A transcript of that hearing is of record. Increased Ratings Disability ratings are determined by evaluating the extent to which a Veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects his or her ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing his or her symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Different ratings may be assigned for different periods of time for the same disorder if the facts show distinct time periods with different levels of disability. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). If two ratings are potentially applicable, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. 1. A rating in excess of 10 percent for neuritis of the right common peroneal nerve The Veteran is in receipt of a10 percent rating for a peripheral nerve condition of the right ankle under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 5271-8621. Hyphenated codes are used when a rating for a particular disability under one diagnostic code is based upon rating of the residuals of that disability under another diagnostic code. 38 C.F.R. § 4.27. The hyphenated diagnostic code in this case indicates that limitation of motion of the ankle under Diagnostic Code 5271 is the service-connected disorder and that "neuritis" of the external popliteal nerve (common peroneal) under Diagnostic Code 8621 is the residual condition. Under Diagnostic Code 8621, the Veteran must demonstrate incomplete paralysis of a moderate nature for a 20 percent rating and complete paralysis results in a 40 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8621. After a thorough review of the lay and medical evidence of record, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against assigning a rating in excess of 10 percent for his right lower extremity neuritis at any time during the period on appeal. The Veteran underwent VA peripheral nerve examinations during the appeal period in April 2013, October 2013, August 2019, February 2020, November 2020, and August 2021. In April 2013, the Veteran reported moderate pain, numbness, and tingling in his right ankle. Physical examination revealed lightly reduced strength with right ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion, as well as decreased sensation. Reflex testing was normal, as was his gait. The examiner determined that the Veteran's nerve disability in the right lower extremity was moderate in severity. nerve disorder was of a mild nature. The Board notes, however, that an additional VA peripheral nerves examination the following October 2013 indicated no impairment associated with any nerve in the Veteran's lower extremities. Based on the foregoing, the RO continued the Veteran's 10 percent rating for his neuritis. While a VA ankle examination was also afforded to the Veteran in October 2013, range of motion was not limited to a degree that would warrant a separate compensable evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5271 for limited motion of the ankle. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. During the multiple VA examinations that have been afforded between August 2019 and August 2021, the Veteran continued to report intermittent or constant pain, tingling, and numbness in the right lower extremity. However, no examiner determined that the severity of the Veran's neuritis was more than mildly severe. Muscle strength testing has been no more than slightly reduced with active movement against some resistance, and sensation has been no more than decreased. Other than hypoactive reflexes noted in November 2020, reflex testing has been otherwise normal. Reflexes, sensation, and strength were all normal most recently in August 2021. The Board notes that although the Veteran underwent an additional ankle examination in April 2021, the examiner did not make any specific findings regarding the Veteran's peripheral nerve disorder. While range of motion in the Veteran's right ankle was noted to be further reduced compared to his previous ankle examination, a separate 10 percent rating has already been granted for a right ankle strain due to plantar flexion reduced to less than 30 degrees effective March 2021. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5271. The Veteran's remaining treatment records are not in significant conflict with the above. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that indicates that the Veteran's neuritis more nearly approximates moderate incomplete paralysis, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a rating in excess of 10 percent for neuritis of the right lower extremity is warranted. The Board is sympathetic to the Veteran's lay statements that his disability is worse than currently evaluated and those statements have been considered. The Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). He is not, however, competent to identify a specific level of disability according to the appropriate diagnostic codes. Such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran's disability have been provided by the medical personnel who have examined him during the current appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the examination reports and the clinical records) directly address the criteria under which the disability is evaluated. The medical and lay evidence has been assessed by the Board in determining the overall disability rating. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. 2. A compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss Ratings of defective hearing are based on organic impairment of hearing acuity as measured by the results of controlled speech discrimination testing together with the average hearing threshold level as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Table VI, Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination, is used to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based on a combination of the percent of speech discrimination and the pure tone threshold average. The Roman numeral designation is located at the point where the percentage of speech discrimination and pure tone average intersect. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(b). The pure tone threshold average is the sum of the pure tone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz, divided by 4. Table VII, Percentage Evaluation for Hearing Impairment, is used to determine the rating by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. The horizontal rows represent the ear having the better hearing and the vertical columns the ear having the poor hearing. The disability rating is located at the point where the rows and column intersect. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(e). When the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz is 55 decibels or more, the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment will be determined from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral. When the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment will be determined from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral. That numeral will then be elevated to the next higher Roman numeral. Each ear will be evaluated separately. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. Table VIA can also be used when the examiner certifies that use of the speech discrimination test is not appropriate because of language difficulties, inconsistent speech discrimination scores, etc. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(c). By way of background, the Veteran was awarded service connection for left ear hearing loss in February 1994 and was assigned a noncompensable (zero percent) disability rating. The Veteran filed a claim for an increased rating for his left ear hearing loss, as well as entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss in November 2012. In the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran's rating for left ear hearing loss was continued. Additionally, service connection for right ear hearing loss was denied, based in part on an absence of hearing loss in that ear. For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. In March 2020, the Board granted service connection for right ear hearing loss, based on an August 2019 VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran's hearing loss was related to his military service, and a February 2020 VA examination that revealed a hearing loss disability for VA purposes which the RO subsequently assigned as the effective date for that disability. As such, the issue is now recharacterized as entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss. Turning to the evidence during the appeal, the Veteran was afforded a VA audiological examination for his initial claim in April 2013. The Veteran reported difficulty hearing conversation on the telephone, television, and in person. The results of the examination, as measured by a puretone audiometry test, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 20 15 15 30 20 LEFT 20 10 65 70 41 In addition, speech recognition was 100 percent in both ears, as measured by the Maryland CNC test. Applying these values to Table VI, both ears are each assigned a Level I Roman numeral designation. Pursuant to Table VII, this corresponds with a noncompensable rating. Regardless of the level of hearing impairment assigned, the Board notes that the Veteran did not have a hearing loss disability in his right ear for VA purposes at this time pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. An additional examination was afforded to the Veteran in August 2019. He reported to the examiner that his hearing loss causes difficulty with hearing over the phone, daily communication, and hearing emergency sirens. The results of the physical examination, as measured by a puretone audiometry test, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 10 10 10 30 15 LEFT 20 55 70 70 54 Speech recognition was again 100 percent in both ears, as measured by the Maryland CNC test. Applying these values to Table VI, his right and left ears are each assigned a Level I Roman numeral designation. Pursuant to Table VII, this corresponds with a noncompensable rating. The Board notes that while the examiner opined that the Veteran did have right ear hearing loss that is at least as likely as not due to his military service, the Veteran again did not meet the threshold for a hearing loss disability for VA purposes pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. An additional examination was afforded to the Veteran in February 2020, where the Veteran was now determined to have a hearing loss disability in the right ear for VA purposes. The results of the physical examination, as measured by a puretone audiometry test, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 15 10 15 40 20 LEFT 15 55 65 70 51 Speech recognition was 92 percent in the right ear and 52 percent in the left ear, as measured by the Maryland CNC test. Applying these values to Table VI, his right and is assigned a Level I Roman numeral designation and his left ear is assigned a Level VII Roman numeral designation. Pursuant to Table VII, this still corresponds with the noncompensable ratings assigned for the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. Finally, a VA examination was afforded to the Veteran again in August 2020. The Veteran reported difficulty hearing without his hearing aid, "especially at fairs and trades shows." The results of the physical examination, as measured by a puretone audiometry test, were as follows: HERTZ 1000 2000 3000 4000 Average RIGHT 10 10 15 30 16 LEFT 20 55 70 70 54 Speech recognition was 100 percent in the right ear and 96 percent in the left ear, as measured by the Maryland CNC test. Applying these values to Table VI, his right and left ears are each assigned a Level I Roman numeral designation. Pursuant to Table VII, this again corresponds with a noncompensable rating. Based upon the mechanical application of the above audiological results to the rating criteria, at no point during the period on appeal does the Veteran's hearing loss warrant a compensable rating. The Veteran's medical treatment records are not in significant conflict with these findings. Thus, as the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss more nearly approximates the criteria for higher ratings, entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.85. The Board has considered the Veteran's complaints regarding the functional impact of his hearing loss on his daily life, but the assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment is derived from a mechanical formula based on levels of pure tone threshold average and speech discrimination. The audiological findings discussed above are more probative than the Veteran's lay contentions as to the extent of his hearing loss. While the Board also acknowledges the Veteran's use of a hearing aid, VA examinations are conducted without use of hearing aids (see 38 C.F.R. § 4.85), and the scores without the use of hearing aids represent a rating made on the worst possible objective measure of performance. The use of hearing aids would, if anything, only serve to provide better hearing than demonstrated on audiometric examination. See 52 Fed. Reg. 44117 (Nov. 18, 1987). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to June 9, 2021 The Veteran asserts that he is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities. VA will grant a total rating for compensation purposes based on unemployability when the evidence shows a veteran is precluded from obtaining or maintaining any gainful employment consistent with his education and occupational experience, by reason of his service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. In reaching such a determination, the central inquiry is "whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability." Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). In arriving at a conclusion, consideration may be given to the veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his age or the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that the term "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 has two components. First, there is an economic component which essentially contemplates an occupation earning more than marginal income (outside of a protected environment) as determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the poverty threshold for one person. Second, there is a non-economic component dealing with the individual veteran's ability to "follow and secure" employment. For the second component, attention must be given to: (a) the veteran's history, education, skill and training, (b) the veteran's physical ability (both exertional and non-exertional) to perform the type of activities (e.g., sedentary, light, medium, heavy or very heavy) required by the occupation at issue, with relevant factors such as lifting, bending, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, grasping, typing, reaching, auditory and visual, and (c) whether the Veteran has the mental ability to perform the type of activities required by the occupation at issue, with relevant factors such as memory, concentration, and ability to adapt to change, handle work place stress, get along with coworkers and demonstrate reliability and productivity. Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019). As "sedentary" is defined as "[r]equiring or marked by much sitting " the Board finds that sedentary employment is a job where the worker primarily sits down. WEBSTER'S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY 999 (1999). If there is only one service-connected disability, it must be rated at least 60 percent disabling to qualify for TDIU benefits; if there are two or more such disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that for the rating period on appeal beginning June 9, 2021, the Veteran is in receipt of a combined schedular disability rating of 100 percent. The Court has recognized that a 100 percent rating under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities indicates that a veteran is totally disabled. Holland v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 443, 446 (1994), citing Swan v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 20, 22 (1990). Thus, if VA has found a veteran to be totally disabled as a result of a particular service-connected disability or combination of disabilities pursuant to the rating schedule, there is no need, and no authority, to otherwise rate that veteran totally disabled on any other basis. See Locklear v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 311, 314 n.2 (2011) (finding entitlement to TDIU mooted from the effective date of a 100 percent schedular disability rating); see also Herlehy v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 33, 35 (2001) (finding a request for TDIU moot where 100 percent schedular rating was awarded for the same period). A grant of a 100 percent disability rating does not always render the issue of TDIU moot, however. VA's duty to maximize a claimant's benefits includes consideration of whether the disabilities establish entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2011); see also Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008). Specifically, SMC may be warranted if a veteran has a 100 percent disability rating for a single disability, and VA finds that TDIU is warranted based solely on the disabilities other than the disability that is rated at 100 percent. See Bradley, 22 Vet. App. at 294. In this case, the Veteran does not have a single disability rated 100 percent disabling, but rather a 100 percent ("total") combined disability rating based on multiple disabilities; thus, there is no basis for assignment of SMC per 38 U.S.C. § 1114. Prior to June 9, 2021, the Veteran meets the threshold schedular disability percentage requirement for TDIU consideration during the entire appeal period as a result of his service-connected pes planus, rated as 50 percent disabling, and his total combined rating of 80 percent from November 2, 2012 and 90 percent from March 10, 2021. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Veteran is also in receipt of 10 percent disability ratings for tinnitus, a right index finger disability, neuritis of the right lower extremity, left hand arthritis, residuals of a left ankle sprain, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome for the period on appeal prior to March 10, 2021. Between March 10, 2021 and June 9, 2021, the Veteran is also in receipt of 10 percent disability ratings for right and left knee disabilities, a right wrist disability, and a right ankle strain. Several disabilities are also rated as noncompensable (zero percent) during the relevant appeal period, including hearing loss, a left ring finger disability, and right and left wrist scars. Military personnel records reflect the Veteran's military occupation specialty (MOS)/rating was that of an Aircraft Loadmaster Superintendent. On his application for unemployability he reported that his service-connected disabilities prevented him from following a substantially gainful occupation. The Veteran reported completing two years of college coursework, and that he was last employed in 2013 as a chef, with a maximum of 20 hours per week. Prior to his employment, he was self-employed as a carpenter. The Veteran has also noted that, since 2013, he has earned money selling homemade food and gift baskets at flea markets and craft fairs, earning anywhere between $0 and $3,000 per month depending on sales, but roughly $800 per month on average. He also assisted with his daughter's business as a bookkeeper, although without pay. See January 2020 and September 2021 VA Forms 21-8940, Veterans Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability. The Veteran presented for various VA examinations during the appeal period to assess the severity of his various service-connected disabilities. During each examination, the Veteran was interviewed by the examiners who also reviewed the pertinent medical history and performed physical examinations. During VA examinations afforded in March and October 2013, peripheral nerve examinations indicated that the Veteran's right lower extremity neuropathy at the time manifested moderate incomplete paralysis of the external popliteal nerve. The examiners opined that the impact of this disability resulted in the Veteran's ability to stand and walk for prolonged periods and requiring more frequent breaks. Additionally, VA foot and ankle examinations in October 2013 each noted that the Veteran's pes planus and left ankle disabilities also had a similar functional impact an inability ot stand or walk for prolonged periods. A March 2013 VA hearing loss examiner also opined that the Veteran's hearing loss and tinnitus resulted in difficulty hearing conversation and difficulty sleeping due to constant ringing in the ears. While the Veteran was also service-connected for bilateral hand and finger disabilities at this time, an examiner opined, after VA hand and finger examinations as well as upper extremity peripheral nerve examinations, that no service-connected disability in the upper extremities impacted his ability to work. The Board nevertheless acknowledges the Veteran's reports at the time of pain, numbness, and difficulty gripping objects. August 2019 VA examinations of the Veteran's right lower extremity notes mild incomplete paralysis of the external popliteal nerve, resulting in "difficulty using stairs, kneeling and squatting, walking more than half a block and standing for more than 15 minutes." The examiner also specifically noted "no effect on sedentary activities." An additional VA hearing loss/tinnitus examination in August 2019 did not reflect any functional impact beyond that which was described in 2013, nor did additional hearing loss/tinnitus examinations afforded again in February and August 2020. As to additional VA examinations afforded throughout 2020 to assess the severity of the Veteran's other service-connected disabilities, VA muscle injuries and peripheral nerve examinations note the Veteran struggling with weight-bearing activities, with right lower extremity symptoms so severe at times the Veteran is "unable to stand or ambulate." His bilateral upper extremity disabilities were again noted to make grasping, lifting, and holding objects difficult. The Board notes here, that the Veteran's became service-connected for additional disabilities effective March 10, 2021, rated as 10 percent disabling, including his bilateral knee disabilities, a right wrist strain, and a right ankle strain. These disabilities resulted in an overall combined 90 percent disability rating. A 10 percent rating was also assigned for a left wrist strain effective June 9, 2021, resulting in the Veteran's combined 100 percent rating effective that date. VA knee examinations in November 2020 and again in April 2021 note the Veteran's limitations in kneeling, standing, and walking. VA ankle and wrist examinations also afforded in April 2021 similarly note the Veteran's limitations in gripping, holding, and lifting, and with prolonged standing, walking, and driving. Treatment records are not in significant conflict with the multiple findings during the above VA examinations. A private medical opinion provided by Dr. J.E. in January 2021 notes that the Veteran started experiencing severe bilateral foot pain, knee pain, ankle pain, and severe wrist pain after his discharge from service, which has resulted in the inability to "do the job he was hired for as a builder and sous-chef since he had to stand on his feet all day every day and walking up and down the stairs, using knives, repetitive motion during chopping and stirring" due to "severe pain in all joints of his feet and hands." The Board also notes that none of the examinations or medical records pertaining to the Veteran's scars, which are all rated as noncompensable (zero percent) during the appeal, suggest that they result in any limitation of function or ability to work. Based on the foregoing, and taken as a whole, the Board finds that while the Veteran's symptoms prior to his combined total rating effective June 9, 2021 resulted in difficulty with ambulation and weight-bearing in the lower extremities, gripping and holding objects with the upper extremities, and with hearing some conversation, they do not suggest he was unable to obtain and maintain employment. Given the Veteran's education and work history, symptoms reported by the Veteran, and the level of functional impairment as reported by VA examiners and treatment providers, the Board does not consider this level of impairment as one that would preclude employment. The Board has considered and acknowledges that the Veteran's lay statements that his physical disabilities make it difficult to work. However, after review of the evidence of record the Board finds that the Veteran's functional limitations would not preclude employment that did not involve walking and standing for extended periods of time, or strenuous physical activities. The Board notes that, despite his physical limitations, the Veteran has remained able to perform bookkeeping activities for his daughter and still attend the very craft fairs and flea markets that he has also asserted he can no longer participate in. While the Board acknowledges that his income in this regard is dependent on sales, he has not demonstrated that his service-connected disabilities render him unable to create the very goods that he sells or that he cannot do so in only a sedentary fashion. He stated in his TDIU applications that he continued to work in a shop behind his house through the present day, despite any physical limitations, particularly those in his upper extremities that might affect his ability to work with his hands. For a Veteran to prevail on a claim for a TDIU, however, the record must reflect some factor which takes the case outside the norm. The sole fact that the Veteran has shown evidence of a difficulty in obtaining employment or earning a living is not enough. The question is whether this Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether he can find employment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Van Hoose, 4 Vet. App. at 361. Overall, the Veteran is qualified through education and experience for a wide variety of positions, many of which would not require strenuous physical activity. He is more than qualified for such positions given that he has a work history involving more sedentary, non-strenuous activity that does not require extensive lifting, standing, or walking. This type of work would also produce income above the poverty threshold. The Board recognizes that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities had a notable and significant effect on his employment capabilities for the period on appeal. The rating schedule, however, already contemplates industrial impairment. Stated another way, evidence of occupational limitations is present in every case in which an evaluation has been assigned for a service-connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (explaining that disability evaluation percentages "represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations" and "degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability"); see also Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993) ("A high rating in itself is a recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain and keep employment."). If the Board were to accept the argument that evidence of occupational limitations due to service-connected disabilities necessarily constitutes evidence of unemployability, then entitlement to TDIU would be reasonably raised and warranted in every case where a Veteran challenged the assigned evaluation. Thus, the Board finds that the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities, and the claim for entitlement to a TDIU prior to June 9, 2021 is not warranted and the claim must be denied. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Scarduzio, 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.