Citation Nr: 21005345 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 12-16 181 DATE: February 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to the service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities is granted. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is granted from July 1, 2012. Entitlement to TDIU for the period prior to July 1, 2012 is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for a lower back disability for the period from June 24, 2010 through December 31, 2011 is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent disabling for a lower back disability for the period from January 1, 2012 through May 15, 2014 is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 60 percent disabling for a lower back disability for the period since May 16, 2014 is dismissed. Entitlement to a compensable rating for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity for the period from June 24, 2010 through June 30, 2012 is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 60 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity for the period since July 1, 2012 is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for bowel dysfunction as secondary to the service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for urinary dysfunction as secondary to the service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his erectile dysfunction is at least as likely as not proximately due to his service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities. 2. During the period from July 1, 2012, the Veteran has been unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due to his service-connected disabilities. 3. On November 25, 2020, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant, through his authorized representative, that the Veteran’s primary goal in this case is to obtain a grant of service connection for erectile dysfunction and to obtain a grant of TDIU as of July 1, 2012, and that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA) can consider all other claims as having been withdrawn, including entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, but only to the extent that the withdrawal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity does not negatively affect the Veteran’s TDIU claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to the service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. 2. The criteria for entitlement to TDIU for the period from July 1, 2012 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to TDIU for the period prior to July 1, 2012 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 4. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for a lower back disability for the period from June 24, 2010 through December 31, 2011 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 5. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent disabling for a lower back disability for the period from January 1, 2012 through May 15, 2014 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 6. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 60 percent disabling for a lower back disability for the period since May 16, 2014 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 7. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a compensable rating for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity for the period from June 24, 2010 through June 30, 2012 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 8. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 60 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity for the period since July 1, 2012 have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 9. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 10. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 11. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 12. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 13. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for bowel dysfunction as secondary to the service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. 14. The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for urinary dysfunction as secondary to the service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1981 to March 1982. This matter comes on appeal before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. This matter was previously before the Board in February 2018. At that time, the Board issued a decision denying the issues of entitlement to ratings in excess of 10 percent disabling for the period from June 24, 2010 through December 31, 2011, in excess of 40 percent disabling for the period from January 1, 2012 through May 15, 2014, and in excess of 60 percent disabling for the period since May 16, 2014 for a lower back disability; entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity; and entitlement to a compensable rating from June 24, 2010 to June 30, 2012 and a rating in excess of 60 percent disabling thereafter for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity. It remanded the issues of entitlement to separate compensable ratings for neurological abnormalities associated with the service-connected lumbar spine and radiculopathy disability, to include erectile dysfunction and bladder issues; service connection for a cervical spine disorder; service connection for a left ankle disorder; service connection for a left knee disorder; and TDIU. The Veteran appealed the Board’s denial of those issues to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in November 2018 and the Court remanded those issues to the Board in December 2018. The Board remanded those issues to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction for additional development in July 2019. As mentioned in the Board’s February 2018 decision and remand, in February 2014, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge; however, he later withdrew his request for a hearing in November 2017 and October 2020. The appeal is now before the Board again for adjudication, and accordingly, despite the prior hearing request, the case is ready for review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). The Board also notes that a claim for TDIU, either expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record, involves an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability and is part of the claim for an increased rating. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). During the course of the Veteran’s appeal for an increased evaluation of his service-connected lumbar spine intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, he has submitted an application claiming entitlement to service connection for TDIU, and he has thus raised the issue of entitlement to a TDIU on the basis of those service-connected disabilities. See VA Form 21-8940, Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based On Unemployability received in April 2016. The claim of entitlement to a TDIU is thus part and parcel of the Veteran’s increased rating claim on appeal. This form of TDIU claim is known as a Rice TDIU, because it was explicitly raised during the administrative appeal of the Veteran’s claim for an increased rating for a service-connected disability and it is, therefore, a component of that claim for benefits related solely to that disability. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 454-455. As such, entitlement to TDIU is addressed herein, pursuant to Rice. Finally, the Board notes that in a November 2020 letter, the Veteran’s representative mentioned that up-to-date treatment records from the Birmingham VA medical center (VAMC) were obtained and were being mailed to the Board concurrent with that letter. The representative asked that the Board defer adjudication of this appeal until those treatment records have been associated with the claims folder. Updated treatment records from the Birmingham VAMC have been associated with the claims file, but it is not clear whether these are the records sent in by the Veteran or his representative. As discussed below, the Board is granting this appeal to the extent requested by the Veteran’s representative in that letter, and it is dismissing the remaining issues as having been withdrawn, as also requested by the Veteran’s representative in that letter. As such, the Board finds that the case is ripe for adjudication and that the Veteran will not be prejudiced thereby. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to the service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to his service-connected disabilities of intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS), lumbar spine (back disability), and lower extremity radiculopathy. For the following reasons, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to his service-connected back disability. Service connection may be granted on a secondary basis for a disability if it is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show that a current disability exists and that the current disability was either proximately caused by or proximately aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995). The Veteran claims that his sex life has suffered since his back injury and subsequent surgeries and that he is no longer able to have sex with his wife. See VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, authored by the Veteran and received January 20, 2015. The Veteran’s wife has stated that she and the Veteran do not have sex because of his pains and it causes problems in their relationship. See VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, authored by the Veteran’s wife and received January 20, 2015. The Veteran received a VA Spine examination in July 2010 which noted the Veteran did not have erectile dysfunction. The Veteran’s VA treatment records show that he requested and was prescribed Viagra in March 2014. These records also indicate that in September 2014, the Veteran was prescribed Lortab, an opioid, for treatment of his service-connected back disability and management of the pain that he experiences as a result thereof. According to the note discussing this prescription, known risks and side effects of opioids include decreased sex hormones. See VA treatment records received in July 2016. A Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) authored by a private physician and received in May 2014 indicates that the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction is a neurologic abnormality or finding and a pertinent physical finding, complication, condition, sign or symptom that is related to his service-connected back condition. This DBQ also indicates that the Veteran was “under [the] influence” of pain medication during the physician’s examination of the Veteran and that the results of this examination are possibly better than the reality. See Back Conditions DBQ received in May 2014. The Veteran’s back and spine were evaluated again in March 2020. The Disability and Benefits Questionnaire stated the no urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, or erectile dysfunction related to the spine were noted on exam. The examiner noted the Veteran denies being under the care of a neurologist for any of these conditions of the spine. See Back Condition DBQ dated March 2020. An October 2020 letter from a private physician that was submitted in support of the Veteran’s claim indicates that the Veteran has been diagnosed with erectile dysfunction and that in the physician’s medical opinion, it is more likely than not that the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction has been caused or aggravated by his near continuous use of NSAID medications for treatment of his service-connected back disability. The examiner cited studies showing that NSAID medications have been shown to adversely affect the erectile process in humans and other mammals. See letter authored by Dr. P.C., received in November 2020. After review and consideration of the evidence of record, including but not limited to that discussed above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of finding that the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction was caused by his service-connected back disability and the medication that he takes therefor. The Veteran and his wife have testified that his back pain and disability has negatively affected their sex life. The May 2014 DBQ indicates that the erectile dysfunction is associated with the back condition. The VA treatment records and October 2020 letter from the private physician indicate that the Veteran’s back pain medications can cause erectile dysfunction. The Board places no probative value on the March 2020 DBQ and examiner’s statement regarding the lack of erectile dysfunction as the examiner failed to address any of the evidence in the record that demonstrates the Veteran has been treated for erectile dysfunction. Moreover, whether the Veteran is under the care of a neurologist of erectile dysfunction is immaterial to whether he has a diagnosis or whether it is related to his service-connected back disability. Thus, the Board finds that based on the probative evidence in the record, it is more likely than not that the Veteran’s erectile dysfunction is caused by his service-connected back disability. As such, he is entitled to service connection for erectile dysfunction. 2. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) The Veteran claims entitlement to TDIU for the period from July 1, 2012. See Appellant’s Brief, dated November 2020. For the following reasons, the Board finds that he is entitled to TDIU during that period. A Veteran may be awarded TDIU benefits if he is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due solely to impairment resulting from his service-connected disabilities. See 38 U.S.C. § 1115; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. Substantially gainful employment is defined as work which is more than marginal and which permits the individual to earn a living wage. Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (1991). On March 14, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) issued Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58 (2019). Ray held that “substantially gainful employment,” in the TDIU context, contains economic and noneconomic components; the economic component means “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,” while the noneconomic component requires consideration of a veteran’s ability to secure or follow that type of employment. The CAVC also provided guidance as to the meaning of a veteran’s ability to “secure and follow” such employment, noting that attention must be given to: the veteran’s occupational history, education, skill and training; whether the veteran has the physical ability to perform occupational activities; and whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform occupational activities. VA may consider the level of education, special training, and previous work experience in making this determination, but may not consider the Veteran’s age or the impairment caused by any nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; see also Ferraro v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 326 (1991). Medical evidence describing the effect of each disorder on the Veteran’s occupational functioning is crucial to permit the Board to arrive at an assessment of employability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. However, the question of whether the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability is ultimately the Board’s determination to make. See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) as support for the conclusion that the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions “place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the VA, not a medical examiner”). Therefore, the Board will review the medical evidence in the context of the other evidence of record prior to reaching an ultimate conclusion regarding his employability. A threshold requirement for eligibility for a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) is that, if there is only one such disability, it must be rated at 60 percent or more; if there are two or more disabilities, at least one disability must be rated at 40 percent or more, with sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable, (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident, (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g., orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric, (4) multiple injuries incurred in action, or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). During the period from July 1, 2012, the Veteran has the following service-connected disabilities and ratings: radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, rated as 60 percent disabling; intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) of the lumbar spine, rated as 40 percent disabling from January 1, 2012 to March 21, 2013, 100 percent disabling from March 22, 2013 to July 31, 2013, 40 percent disabling from August 1, 2013 to May 15, 2014, and 60 percent disabling from May 16, 2014; radiculopathy of the right leg, rated as 10 percent disabling; and a scar associated with the Veteran’s IVDS of the lumbar spine, rated as 0 percent disabling. His combined rating/evaluation has been 80 percent from July 1, 2012 to March 21, 2013, 100 percent from March 22, 2013 to July 31, 2013, 80 percent disabling from August 1, 2013 to May 15, 2014, and 90 percent disabling from May 16, 2014. Therefore, the Veteran meets the threshold requirements for TDIU beginning July 1, 2012, as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Veteran claims that after working for 13 years as a utility operator, he became too disabled to work on April 1, 2012. He claims that his service-connected left lower extremity radiculopathy and lumbar disc syndrome have prevented him from securing or following any substantially gainful occupation since then. He claims that he has completed two years of college, but has no other education or training. He also claims that he trained for and has obtained an electrical associate degree from a community college. The training was completed between August 2013 and May 2015. See VA Form 21-8940, Veteran’s Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, received April 13, 2016. The Veteran has submitted statements detailing the fact that he sometimes falls, can’t balance, and has pain in his left foot. See VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, received October 21, 2014; VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, authored by the Veteran, received January 20, 2015; VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, received June 16, 2015. The Veteran’s wife has also submitted a statement attesting to the fact that the Veteran falls going up and down stairs. See VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, authored by the Veteran’s wife, received January 20, 2015. The Veteran’s records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) show that he stopped working in April 2012 and was determined to be disabled with an onset date of March 22, 2013. The onset date was established based on the SSA’s determination that the Veteran was sedentary because of foot drop from surgery on March 22, 2013 and would not be sedentary prior thereto. When applying for disability benefits, the Veteran claimed that he was disabled because of “[p]ost lower back surgery,” left foot drop, nerve pain, and PTSD, but the SSA’s analysis and determination were clearly based almost entirely on the Veteran’s service-connected back condition, residuals from his back surgery, his service-connected radiculopathy, and his previous work experience. The SSA completed a physical residual functional capacity (RFC) assessment when adjudicating the Veteran’s claim, and considering the Veteran’s prior work experience, it reached the following conclusion regarding the Veteran’s ability to work: The skills the claimant has acquired from his past relevant work experiences are not readily transferable to other occupations that would fall within the work range as outlined by the RFC. These skills would be most useful in other occupations that would require more exertional and non-exertional function than the current RFC assessment reflects. The claimant’s current age is adverse for successful adjustment to other “unskilled” level occupations. See SSA records received July 27, 2016. The Veteran’s VA treatment records clearly show that he has been in a significant amount of pain and significantly disabled as a result of his service-connected back condition and radiculopathy since at least as early as 2012. VA examination reports in the claims file show that leading up to examination in July 2010, the Veteran’s service-connected back condition caused him to occasionally need a day to rest his back and has necessitated epidural blocks. They also show that the July 2015 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s service-connected radiculopathy does impact his ability to work, to the extent that he would be able to work a sedentary job that requires little walking of short distances. The August 2016 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran cannot bend his back to reach without assistance. The January 2020 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran uses a cane for stability with walking and standing and a back brace for stability as a result of his back condition. See VA examination report dated in July 2010; VA examination report dated in July 2015; VA examination report dated in August 2016; VA examination report dated in January 2020. In the May 2014 Back Conditions DBQ authored by the private physician, the physician detailed a history including intermittent periods of low back and leg pain increasing in duration and intensity until constant at present (i.e., the time of that examination) and two prior back surgeries; one in 1991, and another in 2013. The physician stated that any movement to the left causes instability which in turn has caused the Veteran to fall frequently as his condition has progressed. The physician indicated that the total duration of the Veteran’s incapacitating episodes related to his back condition over the past 12 months was at least five weeks, but the physician did not further specify how many weeks of incapacitation the condition caused. The physician stated that the Veteran wears a brace for his left foot drop. When asked whether the Veteran’s back condition impacts the Veteran’s ability to work, the physician stated that it not only causes instability, loss of balance, and falls, but also an inability to climb stairs or ladders and lower back and leg pain after prolonged sitting. Finally, the physician stated that the Veteran was “under [the] influence” of pain medication during the examination because his pain was so severe and that the results of the examination were possibly better than they otherwise would have been without the medication. See Back Conditions DBQ received in May 2014. In a March 202 Back Condition DBQ, the VA examiner noted the Veteran’s back condition impacts his ability to work, noting the Veteran experienced back pain, stiffness, limited range of motion, difficulty with heavy lifting more than 40 pounds, bending, and prolonged walking over a quarter mile or climbing stairs. The October 2020 letter from the Veteran’s private physician contains an opinion from that physician that the Veteran has been disabled and unable to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment since July 1, 2012 as a result of his service-connected back condition and associated radiculopathy. The physician explained that the Veteran’s service-connected back condition and radiculopathy have necessitated the use of assistive devices and central nervous system-altering medications. The physician also stated that those disabilities have drastically impacted the Veteran’s ability to function on a daily basis (much less his ability to work), and render him unable to work in any gainful capacity, physical or sedentary, as he has been unable to sit or stand without significant pain since at least April 2012, when he was forced to cease his employment due to his pain. The examiner noted that the Veteran requires assistance performing many activities of daily living, including bathing and cooking, and that the medications that he takes would render him unable to safely and legally drive, which would further limit his employment opportunities. See letter authored by Dr. P.C., received in November 2020. When considering the Veteran’s employment and educational background, as well as the medical evidence of record, and affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that the evidence supports a grant of TDIU. When looking at the effects of his service-connected IVDS and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy in the aggregate, and considering his past education and work experience as a utility operator, the Board finds the Veteran is not capable of obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment consistent with his education and experience. The occupational skills that he has developed do not appear to be readily transferable to any other type of work that the Veteran would be physically able to perform, and the record reflects that even sedentary work would be very difficult for the Veteran to perform, since he is often unable to drive, requires assistance with many activities of daily living, and cannot sit, stand, walk or do many other physical activities for any prolonged period of time and represents a serious fall risk. The Board is the ultimate arbitrator on whether the Veteran is entitled to TDIU, not a medical examiner. Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). As such, the Board concludes that TDIU is warranted under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) for the period from July 1, 2012. Finally, the Board has considered whether TDIU is warranted on a single service-connected disability but finds that it is not. See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008). Here, the Veteran has consistently contended, and the probative evidence of record shows, that it is the combined effects of the Veteran’s service-connected back and radiculopathy disabilities that make his unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful employment. 3. Entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) for the period prior to July 1, 2012 4. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities 5. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities 6. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities 7. Entitlement to service connection for bowel dysfunction as secondary to the service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities 8. Entitlement to service connection for urinary dysfunction as secondary to the service-connected disability of intervertebral disc syndrome, lumbar spine and lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities Increased Rating 9. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for a lower back disability for the period from June 24, 2010 through December 31, 2011 10. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent disabling for a lower back disability for the period from January 1, 2012 through May 15, 2014 11. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 60 percent disabling for a lower back disability for the period since May 16, 2014 12. Entitlement to a compensable rating for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity for the period from June 24, 2010 through June 30, 2012 13. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 60 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity for the period since July 1, 2012 14. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant (i.e., the Veteran) or by his or her authorized representative. Id. In the present case, the appellant, through his authorized representative, submitted a letter stating that the Veteran’s primary goal in this case is to obtain a grant of service connection for erectile dysfunction and to obtain a grant of TDIU as of July 1, 2012, and that the Board can consider all other claims as having been withdrawn, including entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent disabling for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, but only to the extent that the withdrawal of that latter issue does not negatively affect the Veteran’s TDIU claim. As discussed above, the Board has granted entitlement to TDIU, effective July 1, 2012. Hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. Tiffany Dawson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Banks, Associate 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.