Citation Nr: 21007362 Decision Date: 02/09/21 Archive Date: 02/09/21 DOCKET NO. 15-40 828 DATE: February 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for herniated nucleus pulposus, L4-5 (back disability) is denied. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for residual scar, status post diskectomy is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s back disability is not manifested by unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. 2. The Veteran’s scar was not painful or unstable, causes no limitation of function, and is a linear scar measuring 5cm or less. 3. The most probative evidence of record does not show that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities render him unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for herniated nucleus pulposus, L4-5 (back disability) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5242-5237. 2. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable disability rating for residual scar, status post diskectomy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.118, Code 7805. 3. The criteria for entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service with the U.S. Navy from December 1988 to March 1995. This case comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Duty to Notify and Assist VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.326(a).  These duties have been satisfied in this case.  Appropriate notice was provided in April 2012.  The RO associated the Veteran’s service and VA and private outpatient treatment records with the claims file. All released or submitted private treatment records have been associated with the claims file.  No other relevant records have been identified and are outstanding.  Importantly, in response to VA notice that some private record custodians required payment of fees, the Veteran indicated the records would not be produced and adjudication should Appropriate and necessary examinations were afforded the Veteran, and are adequate for evaluation, as they include needed findings to permit application of the rating schedule and identification of current disability. Such includes the examinations ordered in the February 2020 Board remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). As such, VA has satisfied its duty to assist.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). Neither the Veteran nor his representative have raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist.  See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Increased Rating Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which assigns ratings based on the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 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. Pertinent regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Rating Schedule, but that findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the resulting disability and, above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. In order to evaluate the level of disability and any changes in condition, it is necessary to consider the complete medical history of the Veteran’s condition. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 594 (1991). Separate evaluations may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found. In other words, the evaluations may be staged. Staged ratings are appropriate for any rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods during the appeal period where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Back Disability Disabilities of the spine are rated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (for Diagnostic Codes 5235 to 5243, unless 5243 is evaluated under the Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome (IVDS) Based on Incapacitating Episodes). IVDS (preoperatively or postoperatively) may be evaluated either under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine or under the Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes, whichever method results in the higher evaluation when all disabilities are combined. The Formula for Rating IVDS based on Incapacitating Episodes provides for a 60 percent rating when there are incapacitating episodes of IVDS having a total duration of at least six weeks during the past 12 months. A 40 percent rating is warranted when there are incapacitating episodes of IVDS having a total duration of at least four weeks, but less than six weeks during the past 12 months. A 20 percent rating is warranted when there are incapacitating episodes of IVDS having a total duration of at least two weeks, but less than four weeks during the past 12 months. An incapacitating episode is defined as a period of acute signs and symptoms due to IVDS that required bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has requiring bed rest during any period on appeal. As required bed rest is a fundamental element for an evaluation under this section of the rating schedule, the absence of any prescribed bed rest precludes a rating under the IVDS criteria. Ratings under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine are made with or without symptoms such as pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching in the area of the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease. The General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine provides a 20 percent rating for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or, muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. A 40 percent rating is assigned where forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is to 30 degrees or less, or if there is favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent rating is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine, while a 100 percent rating is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. General Rating Formula. Additionally, any associated objective neurologic abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, are to be evaluated separately under the appropriate diagnostic codes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Code 5243. For VA compensation purposes, normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is zero to 90 degrees, extension is zero to 30 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 30 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 30 degrees. In evaluating any disability on the basis of limitation of motion, VA must consider the actual degree of functional impairment imposed by pain, incoordination, weakness, fatigue, and lack of endurance with repetitive motion. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59; DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). In October 2012, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The Veteran was diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation. The Veteran’s condition had worsened with aging and weight gain. The Veteran reported that his flare-ups impacted his inability to bend at the waist. He was unable to walk or stand for long periods. His initial range of motion (ROM) was 45 degrees for forward flexion, with pain at 30 degrees; 20 degrees for extension with pain; 20 degrees for right and left lateral flexion, with pain; and 25 degrees for right and left lateral rotation, with pain. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing. Post-test ROM was 45 degrees for flexion, 20 degrees for extension, and 25 degrees for right and left lateral flexion and right and left lateral rotation. He did not have additional limitation in ROM after repetitive-use testing. However, he did have a functional loss or impairment described as less movement than normal and pain on movement. The Veteran had localized tenderness or pain to palpation for joint and/or soft tissue of the back. This was described as mildly tender spasticity along the midline lumbar paraspinal muscles. The Veteran had guarding and/or muscle spasm present, but it did not result in an abnormal gait or spinal contour. His muscle strength testing was normal. He did not have muscle atrophy. His reflex and sensory examination was normal. His straight leg raising test was negative. He did not have radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy. The Veteran did not have ankylosis. The Veteran had IVDS of the spine; however, he did not have any incapacitating episodes over the past 12 months. He did not use an assistive device for his condition. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s back condition impacted his ability to work. The examiner noted that the Veteran had the inability to bend at his waist. He was unable to walk or stand for long periods. The Veteran was unable to lift more than 20 pounds when he had flare-ups. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2013. The Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative osteoarthrosis. The Veteran’s condition had worsened through the years as he has aged. The Veteran reported that his flare-ups impacted his inability to bend at the waist. He reported that he was unable to walk for long periods or lift more than 10 pounds. Initial ROM was 35 degrees for flexion, with pain; 5 degrees for extension, with pain; and 10 degrees for right and lateral flexion and right and left lateral rotation, with pain. The Veteran was able perform repetitive-use testing. Post-test ROM was 30 degrees for forward flexion and 10 degrees for extension, right and left lateral flexion, and right and left lateral rotation. The Veteran did not have additional limitation in ROM after repetitive-use testing. He did have a functional loss/impairment described as less movement than normal, pain on movement, and interference with sitting, standing and/or weight-bearing. He had mild tenderness and moderate spasticity along midline lumbar paraspinals. He had guarding and/or muscle spasm present, but it did not result in an abnormal gait or spinal contour. He had a normal muscle strength testing. He did not have muscle atrophy. He had a normal reflex and sensory examination. His straight leg raising test was negative. He did not have muscle atrophy. He had a normal sensory examination. The Veteran did not have radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy. He did not have IVDS of the spine. He did not use an assistive device for his condition. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s back condition did not impact his ability to work. In February 2017, the Veteran was afforded a VA spine examination. The Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease (DDD) and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. He reported that he had flare-ups every couple of days. He noted that he could not sit up or walk without assistance. He had a functional loss/impairment described as a difficulty dressing himself. The examiner was unable to test the Veteran’s ROM. The examiner explained that the Veteran had a case of severe pain. The Veteran was not examined immediately after use over time. The Veteran had pain that caused a functional loss. The examiner was not able to describe in terms of ROM because the Veteran had increased pain. He did not have muscle spasm. The Veteran had localised tenderness and guarding that resulted in an abnormal gait or spine contour. The Veteran had additionally factors that contributed to his disability described as obesity. The Veteran had normal muscle strength testing, reflex examination, and sensory examination. The Veteran did not have muscle atrophy. He had a positive straight left raising test. He did not have ankylosis. He did not have IVDS of the spine. He occasionally used a cane for his condition. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s back condition impacted his ability to work. The examiner noted that the Veteran would have difficulty lifting heavy objects. The examiner noted that although the Veteran had a severe case of back pain, he was observed getting into the car slowly and with some difficulty but was unassisted by his wife. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in April 2020. The Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis of the spine. The Veteran reported that his condition had gotten worse. He indicated that he was doing physical therapy but stopped because of coronavirus (COVID-19). He reported that his current symptoms were intermittent lower back pain with prolonged sitting or standing. He had occasional radiation pain in the right lower extremity. He treated his condition with Morton 800mg as needed. The Veteran did not report any flare-ups. He reported that he had a functional loss/impairment that caused him not able to walk for long periods or sit for a period of time in one position. His initial ROM was 50 degrees for flexion, 15 degrees for extension and 20 degrees for right and left lateral flexion and right and left lateral rotation. The Veteran’s ROM itself did not contribute to a functional loss. Pain was noted on examination and caused a functional loss. There was evidence of pain with weight-bearing. There was no objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissue of the spine. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive-use testing without an additional loss of function or ROM. Pain, weakness, fatigability or incoordination did not significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over a period of time. Pain, weakness, fatigability or incoordination did not significantly limit functional ability with flare ups. The examiner explained that the Veteran denied flare-ups. The Veteran had guarding that did not result in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour. He had a normal sensory examination. He was unable to perform straight leg raising test. He did not have ankylosis of the spine. He did not have IVDS of the spine. He frequently used a cane for his condition. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s back disability impacted his ability to work. The examiner noted that the Veteran could not sit, stand, or walk for prolonged periods of time. The examiner noted that passive ROM of the spine was not performed as it was not feasible to do in this in a safe and reasonable manner. The examiner noted that that non-weight bearing assessment was not applicable. The evidence does not show that the criteria for a disability rating greater than 40 percent were approximated at any time, including on active or passive motion, or while weightbearing or non-weightbearing. See Correia, 28 Vet. App. at 170. The Veteran’s low back symptomatology does not approach a 50 percent disability rating. There is no evidence in the record that indicates the Veteran has unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine, including upon consideration of pain and actual functional loss. See DeLuca, supra. Although the Veteran’s lumbar spine strain disability is severe, the objective evidence does not more closely approximate the higher 50 percent rating. He retains motion of the low back that makes it obvious there is no unfavorable ankylosis or its functional equivalent. Moreover, there are no indications of incapacitating episodes. The claim must be denied; there is no doubt to be resolved. Scar The Veteran’s scar is rated as non-compensable under Diagnostic Code 7805, under scars that result in limitation of function. Applicability of other Diagnostic Codes has been considered. Code 7800 applies to scars of the head, face, or neck; however, as the scars on appeal before us are only of the trunk and extremities, Code 7800 is not applicable. Code 7801 applies to scars not of the head, face, or neck, that are associated with underlying soft tissue damage; however, as the scars on appeal before us are only the superficial scars of the trunk and extremities, Code 7801 is not applicable. Code 7802 applies to scars not of the head, face, or neck, that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage; under this Code, a maximum 10 percent rating is assigned for an area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater. However, the scars on appeal do not cover 144 square inches or greater. Code 7804 applies to unstable or painful scars; under this Code, a 10 percent rating is assigned for one or two scars that are unstable or painful, a 20 percent rating is assigned for three or four scars that are unstable or painful, and a 30 percent maximum rating is assigned for five or more scars that are unstable or painful. The Veteran is currently in receipt of a 10 percent rating under this Code for a scar of the left wrist as a residual of a shrapnel wound. In October 2012, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The Veteran did not have any scars or disfigurement of the head, face, or neck. The Veteran had a scar on the truck of extremities. The scar of the trunk or extremities were not painful. The scar of the truck or extremities was not unstable, with frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar. The Veteran’s scar was not both painful and unstable. His scar was not due to burns. His scar was on the posterior trunk. His scar was linear with a length 5cm. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s scar did not impact his ability to work. In October 2013, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The Veteran had a lumbar diskectomy scar to treat herniated disc. He did not have any scars or disfigurement of the head, face, or neck. The Veteran had a scar on the truck of extremities. The scar of the trunk or extremities were not painful. The scar of the truck or extremities was not unstable, with frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar. The Veteran’s scar was not both painful and unstable. His scar was not due to burns. His scar was on the posterior trunk. His scar was a superficial non-linear. His scar was 6 x 0.5cm. The examiner opined that Veteran’s scar did not impact his ability to work. In February 2017, the Veteran was afforded a VA back disability examination. The Veteran had a scar that was on the lower back right side. His scar was not painful or unstable or have a total area equal to or greater than 39 square cm. A compensable rating under Code 7805 is not warranted. Competent examiners indicated that the scar did not cause limitation of motion, nor has the Veteran so alleged. Therefore, as the scar did not have any disabling effects, a compensable rating under Code 7805 is not warranted. The record reflects that the scar is not painful or unstable, covers a total area of less than 39 square centimeters, and does not cause any additional impairment. Accordingly, a compensable disability rating is not warranted for the scar. TDIU It is the established policy of VA that all Veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. A finding of total disability is appropriate “when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation.” See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340(a)(1), 4.15. TDIU may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total and it is found that the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of either (1) a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or (2) two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). The Veteran is service-connected for herniated nucleus pulposus, L4-5 rated as 40 percent disabling effective April 17, 20012; bronchial asthma rated as 30 percent disabling effective October 12, 2013; left lower extremity radiculopathy (sciatic nerve) rated as 10 percent effective February 13, 2017; right lower extremity radiculopathy(sciatic nerve) rated as 10 percent effective February 13, 2017; left lower extremity radiculopathy (femoral nerve) rated as 10 percent effective February 13, 2017; right lower extremity radiculopathy (femoral nerve) rated as 10 percent effective February 13, 2017; and residual scar, status post diskectomy rated as noncompensable effective April 17, 2012. His combined rating as of April 17, 2012, was 50 percent, which does not meet the schedular eligibility threshold. As of October 12, 2013, the combined rating rose to 60 percent, but such was not due to a single disability, even under the considerations of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). The Veteran did meet the schedular eligibility threshold as of February 13, 2017, when a combined 70 percent rating was reached, with a single disability, the back disability, rated 40 percent disabling. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). Therefore, should actual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities be found, referral for extraschedular consideration by the Director, Compensation and Pension Service, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b) would be required for the period prior to February 13, 2017. The Board can grant TDIU in the first instance when the threshold is met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. The first inquiry, accordingly, is whether the Veteran is actually unemployable at any time during the appellate period since April 2012. On May 2012 statement, the Veteran indicated that did not have a good quality of life due to his physical and mental problems. He indicated that he had a lot of pain for years. In October 2012, the Veteran was afforded VA respiratory condition examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s respiratory condition did not impact his ability to work. The October 2012 VA back examination noted that the Veteran’s back disability impacted his ability to bend at the waist. He reported that he was not able to walk or stand for long periods. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s back condition impacted his ability to work. The examiner noted that the Veteran had the inability to bend at his waist. He was unable to walk or stand for long periods. The Veteran was unable to lift more than 20 pounds when he had flare-ups. The October 2013 VA back examiner opined that the Veteran’s back disability did not impact his ability to work. The Veteran reported that he was not able to walk for long periods or lift more than 10 pounds. The October 2013 VA respiratory examiner opined that the Veteran’s respiratory condition impacted his ability to work. The examiner noted that the Veteran was unable to walk very far or perform any other exertional activities. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s morbid obesity and severe physical deconditions also aggravated his pulmonary condition. However, the Veteran’s symptoms remained inadequately controlled on his current medical regimen. The October 2017 VA back examiner opined that the Veteran’s back condition impacted his ability to work. The examiner noted that the Veteran would have difficulty lifting heavy objects. The examiner noted that although the Veteran had a severe case of back pain, he was observed getting into the car slowly and with some difficult but was unassisted by his wife. The Veteran reported that he could not sit up or walk without assistance. He had a functional loss/impairment described as a difficulty dressing himself. In his TDIU application, received in December 2019, the Veteran indicated that his service-connected disabilities prevented him from securing substantial gainful employment. The Veteran indicated that he last worked in February 2015, even though he reported he had become too disabled to work in 2008, and had received SSA benefits during that period. The Veteran worked in a warehouse and as an administrative assistant. The Veteran earned a certificate in medical billing and coding in 2009 and then completed his bachelor’s degree in 2018, in media production. The Veteran indicated that because of his back condition he was not able to sit for more than 15 to 20 minutes. He indicated that he preferred to stand in front of his computer screen; however, he was reprimanded if he did. He noted that the medication prescribed for his back pain made him drowsy. He reported that from 2014 to 2018 he attended online and in-person classes to obtain his bachelor’s degree in media production. He noted he missed several weeks of classes because of his pain. He indicated because of his asthma he had shortness of breath when he did physical activity. The October 2019 VA peripheral nerves condition VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s peripheral nerve condition did not impact his ability to work. The Veteran reported that he had constant pain that traveled down his legs. On December 2019 private vocational assessment, the consultant noted that the Veteran’s file was reviewed. The consultant had a telephonic interview with the Veteran. He noted that the Veteran was unable to sit or stand for more than 15 minutes due to his back condition. He was only able to walk a couple hundreds of feet due to his back condition. He noted that the Veteran’s asthma caused him to have shortness of breath with physical activity, such as walking for extended periods. The Veteran was unable to lift more 5 to 10 pounds and was not able to twist his back. The consultant noted that the Veteran had difficulty maintaining the seated position when he was employed as a surveillance system monitor. The Veteran was required to sit for 8 to 12 hours but found it difficult to maintain a seated position. He indicated that the Veteran experienced drowsiness as a side effect of his pain medication. He noted that the Veteran was frequently distracted by pain and experienced excessive absences due to flare-ups. He noted that he left his job because of his back condition. The Veteran completed medical billing and coding training from 2008 to 2009. The Veteran completed his bachelor’s degree in 2018 in media production. The consultant opined that the Veteran was more likely than not unable to secure and follow substantially gainful employment, to include sedentary employment as a result of his service-connected disabilities. On April 2020 VA back examination report, the VA examiner opined that that the Veteran’s back disability impacted his ability to work. The examiner noted that the Veteran could not sit, stand, or walk for prolonged periods of time. On April 2020 VA individual unemployability statement, the examiner indicated that the Veteran was able to do medium work. He was able to exert 20 to 50 pounds of force occasionally, and/or 10 to 25 pounds of force frequently, and/or greater than negligible up to 10 pounds of force constantly to move objects. The examiner noted that physical demand requirements were in excess of those for light work. The examiner noted that the Veteran had active movement against some resistance in muscle strength testing. He did not have muscle atrophy and his reflex examination showed some hypoactivity. Throughout the appeals period VA examiners opined that the Veteran’s scar did not impact his ability to work. Furthermore, the Veteran did not report that his scar caused limitation of motion or was unstable/painful. Here, the Board finds that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities do not preclude substantially gainful employment. Though the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities certainly impact his physical abilities and he would not be able to work in a physically demanding position, VA examiners have found that the Veteran is not prohibited from less physically demanding work. The Board recognizes the Veteran’s belief that he is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due to his service-connected disabilities, but he has focused on the impact of his disabilities on the physical aspects of a job. However, merely because the Veteran is unable to complete physical aspects of a job such as prolonged walking, standing, and lifting, it does not follow that the Veteran would be unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation that involves nonphysical work. He could supervise or work primarily at a desk location. Though the Veteran reports he cannot sit for a prolonged period of time which may impact a desk job, this limitation is not to the degree that it would preclude employment in a desk job. For instance, the Veteran could stand up and take breaks from any prolonged sitting. His assertion that he was reprimanded for standing at his desk and was not afforded reasonable accommodations is contrary to law. Furthermore, the Veteran was able during the appeals period obtain his bachelor’s degree in media production, working online and in classes; this accomplishment seems contrary to his assertions of insurmountable limitations. The evidence shows that the Veteran could train to do other occupations with his condition and perform in a different occupational task. The Board notes that the December 2019 private vocational expert provided a positive opinion for unemployability. The consultant opined that the Veteran was more likely than not unable to secure and follow substantially gainful employment, to include sedentary employment as a result of his service-connected disabilities. However, the Board finds the VA examination reports have more probative value in discussing the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities and their impact on his ability to work because the VA professionals examined the Veteran in person and made their assessment based upon a review of the record and their clinical findings. The April 2020 VA examiner noted that the Veteran was able to do medium work and do light physical work. The Board notes that the Veteran is in receipt of Social Security disability benefits, but that this determination included consideration of non-service-connected disabilities, such as gout, obesity, major depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. VA is not bound by determinations made by the Social Security Administration. See Collier v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 413, 417 (1991). In sum, the Board finds that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities do not render him unable to obtain or maintain gainful employment consistent with his education, training, and work experience. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to a TDIU is denied. In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Baxter 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.