Citation Nr: 21009045 Decision Date: 02/18/21 Archive Date: 02/18/21 DOCKET NO. 14-12 871 DATE: February 18, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities, on a schedular or extraschedular basis prior to May 31, 2016, is denied. FINDING OF FACT For the period prior to May 31, 2016, the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone preclude him from obtaining or maintaining substantially gainful employment consistent with his level of education and work history on a schedular or extraschedular basis. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU prior to May 31, 2016, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16, 4.19 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1973 to March 1974, with subsequent service in the Army National Guard through November 1975. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the Board) from a June 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. The Veteran appeared at a Travel Board hearing at the RO in September 2015 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file. The Board remanded the issue on appeal for additional development in January 2018 and December 2019. The directives having been substantially complied with, the matter again is before the Board. D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). When a Veteran files a claim for an increased rating, he is presumed to be seeking the maximum benefit under any applicable theory, including TDIU. See generally Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). Since the Board’s last consideration of this Veteran’s appeal, TDIU was awarded from May 31, 2016 forward. As mentioned previously, the issue for this decision is the potential for a TDIU prior to May 31, 2106, which will be discussed below. In that regard, entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) can also be found to be an inferable issue anytime a veteran is requesting increased benefits. Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 118 (1991). However, in this case there is no lay or medical evidence that the Veteran is housebound in fact, requires aid and attendance, or that his disabilities result in loss of use of a limb, blindness or deafness. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114(s), (l), (k); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a), (b), (i). As such, the Board will not infer the issue of entitlement to SMC at this time. Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2020). The Veteran in this case has not referred to any deficiencies in either the duties to notify or assist; therefore, the Board may proceed to the merits of the claim. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015, cert. denied, U.S.C. Oct. 3, 2016) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board….to search the record and address procedural arguments when the [appellant] fails to raise them before the Board”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to an appellant’s failure to raise a duty to assist argument before the Board). The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-130 (2000). TDIU It is the established policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. A total disability exists where there is any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.340. Generally, TDIU is awarded on a schedular basis, which requires that, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Here, the Veteran has already been awarded TDIU as of May 31, 2016, the first date of his schedular eligibility. As the evidence reflects that the Veteran was unemployed during at least part of the appeal period after the initial date of service connection for his service-connected disabilities and he contends that his service-connected disabilities contributed to his inability to work, the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, prior to May 31, 2016, remains on appeal before the Board. See Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 345 (2018). The question of a TDIU prior to that date is of issue in this Board decision. Legal Standards A total disability rating may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when it is found that the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as the result of service-connected disabilities. See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. Consideration may be given to a veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience in arriving at a conclusion, but not to his age or the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; see also Todd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 79, 85-86 (2014). To qualify for a total rating for compensation purposes, the evidence must show: (1) a single disability rated as 100 percent disabling; or (2) that the veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities and there is one disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or, if more than one disability, at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more and a combined disability rating of 70 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). For the purpose of establishing one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, disabilities affecting a single body system are considered as one disability. Id. Disabilities that are not service connected cannot serve as a basis for a total disability rating. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.19. Unlike the regular disability rating schedule, which is based on the average work-related impairment caused by a disability, “entitlement to TDIU is based on an individual’s particular circumstance.” Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2009) (quoting Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111, 116 (2008)); see also Todd, 27 Vet. App. at 85-86. Therefore, in adjudicating a TDIU claim, VA must take into account the individual veteran’s education, training, and work history. Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164, 168 (1991) (level of education is a factor in deciding employability); see Friscia v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 294 (1994) (considering veteran’s experience as a pilot, his training in business administration and computer programming, and his history of obtaining and losing 19 jobs in the previous 18 years); Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532 (1994) (considering veteran’s 8th grade education and sole occupation as a farmer); Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (1991) (considering veteran’s master degree in education and his part-time work as a tutor). When considering a TDIU, the overriding issue is unemployability, not unemployment. The sole fact that a veteran is unemployed for non-service- connected reasons, or has difficulty obtaining employment because of economic circumstances, is not enough for a TDIU grant. A high schedular rating, in itself, is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain and retain employment. The question is whether the veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the veteran can, in fact, find employment. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.15. As noted, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, alone, must be sufficiently severe to produce unemployability. Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the Veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his age or to any impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. The Veteran’s employment history, his educational and vocational attainment, and his particular disabilities are to be considered in making a determination on unemployability. The VA General Counsel has concluded that VA regulations generally provide that veterans who, in light of their individual circumstances, but without regard to age, are unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities shall be rated as totally disabled, without regard to whether an average person would be rendered unemployable by such circumstances. Thus, the criteria include a subjective standard. It was also held that unemployability is synonymous with the inability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation. VAOPGCPREC 75-91 (1991). “Substantially gainful employment” 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. Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019). In determining whether a veteran can secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation, attention must be given to: the veteran’s history, education, skill, and training; whether the veteran has the physical ability (both exertional and nonexertional) to perform the type of activities (e.g., sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy) required by the occupation at issue. Factors that may be relevant include, but are not limited to, the veteran’s limitations, if any, concerning lifting, bending, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, grasping, typing, and reaching, as well as auditory and visual limitations; and whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue. Factors that may be relevant include, but are not limited to, the veteran’s limitations, if any, concerning memory, concentration, ability to adapt to change, handle workplace stress, get along with coworkers, and demonstrate reliability and productivity. Ray, 31 Vet. App. at 73-74. As noted above, in determining whether the veteran is entitled to individual unemployability, neither his non-service-connected disabilities nor his advancing age may be considered. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). Thus, in deciding the claim, the Board may not favorably consider the effects of the non-service-connected disabilities with respect to their degree of interference with his employability. Indeed, the Court stated that in order for a veteran to prevail on a claim for TDIU, the record must reflect some factor which takes his case outside of the norm. The sole fact that he is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. The question is whether the veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether he can find employment. See Van Hoose v. Brown, supra. If total industrial impairment has not been shown, the VA is not obligated to show that a veteran is incapable of performing specific jobs in considering a claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability. See Gary v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 229 (1994). A high rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment, but the ultimate question is whether a veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether a veteran can find employment. When reasonable doubt arises as to the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in a veteran’s favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. As noted, consideration may not be given to the impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. However, when it is not possible to separate the effects of a non-service-connected condition from those of a service-connected disorder, reasonable doubt should be resolved in the claimant’s favor with regard to the question of whether certain signs and symptoms can be attributed to the service-connected disability. Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181, 182 (1998); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.10. Under applicable criteria, VA shall consider all lay and medical evidence of record in a case with respect to benefits under laws administered by VA. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities, prior to May 31, 2016. Schedular TDIU A total disability rating for individual unemployability may be granted where the schedular rating is less than total and the service-connected disabilities preclude the veteran from obtaining or maintaining substantially gainful employment consistent with his education and occupational experience. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. If there is only one such disability, it must be rated at 60 percent or more, and if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability rated at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Service connection has been previously established for degenerative joint disease, lumbar spine with IVDS, rated at 20 percent disabling from July 31, 2002 forward to May 31, 2016, and at 40 percent from May 31, 2016 forward. The Veteran is also rated for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy currently evaluated at 20 percent disabling for each extremity, with the left lower extremity radiculopathy effective from January 5, 2012, and the right lower extremity radiculopathy effective from May 31, 2016. The Veteran’s total evaluation for compensation is an overall 20 percent from July 31, 2002 to January 5, 2012, and an overall 40 percent from January 5, 2012 to May 31, 2016, the effective date of his current TDIU award. Thus, the Veteran does not meet the minimum schedular requirements for a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a) prior to May 31, 2016. Consequently, a TDIU rating on a schedular basis prior to May 31, 2016, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), is not warranted. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). Extraschedular TDIU If the above percentage thresholds are not met, the Veteran’s claim may still be referred to the Director, Compensation Service for consideration of an extraschedular rating, when the evidence of record shows that Veteran is “unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b); Fanning v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 225, 229 (1993). However, as the Board does not have the authority to assign an extraschedular TDIU in the first instance, referral to the Director, Compensation Service, for consideration of entitlement to a TDIU was warranted and remanded to the RO in a December 2019 Board decision and remand. Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1 (2001). VA’s Director, Compensation Service, provided a negative advisory opinion dated November 18, 2020. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). The Director considered the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities of his lumbar spine and associated lower extremity radiculopathy. The Veteran’s VA Form 21-8940 from January 2012 noted that he completed three years of high school, and that he not worked regularly since leaving active service in 1974. The Veteran did not report any other training or education completed. The Director’s memo recommended against award of extraschedular consideration of a TDIU prior to May 31, 2016. The Director noted the Veteran had a non-service-connected pension from July 31, 2002, and also that he was service connected for his lumbar spine disability with associated lower extremity radiculopathy. The Director noted the medical evidence indicated the negative functional impacts of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, to include difficulties, sitting, standing, or walking for any prolonged period. Additionally, his service-connected conditions involve limitation of motion in the lumbar spine with substantial pain, along with his lower extremity radicular disabilities. The Director then discussed the general changes to the American workplace has had in the last several decades, leading to less strenuous jobs compared to those of years ago. The decline, the Director explained, was due in part to increasing reliance on computers, the internet, and email, and that there were many jobs that require only light activity and that allow one to work from home. Thus, as long as the Veteran was allowed to alternate between such positions, which would be the case in many less physically demanding jobs, it is clear the Veteran would be expected to handle such positions. Furthermore, per the Director, such limitations could reasonably be mitigated with adaptive equipment such as a sit/stand desk. As noted by the Director, a high rating in itself recognizes that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain and keep employment. Further, the ultimate question is whether the Veteran, because of service-connected disabilities, is incapable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether or not he can find employment. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). As noted in Withers v. Wilkie, Aug 20, 2018, 30 Vet. App. 139 (2018), Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013), et al, the finding of an ability to work is not a medical determination, but is a legal determination made on a case-by-case basis. This decision is based on a review of medical and lay evidence presented in light of each veterans’ education, training, and work history. Careful consideration has been given to all of these facets. See also Pederson v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 276 (2015) and Ray v. Wilkie, Mar 14, 2019, 31 Vet. App. 58 (2019). As noted in Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) the Federal Circuit has held while the entire evidence record must be reviewed, there is no need to discuss each piece of evidence. In this case, after giving consideration to all relevant evidence; including, but not limited to the Veteran’s education, training, and work history, the Director of Compensation Service has determined the overall evidence fails to support the contention that any of the service-connected disabilities or a combination of the effects of those disabilities support an exceptional situation that prevented gainful employment. In her summation, the Director opined that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the contention that the Veteran’s service-connected conditions alone resulted a TDIU prior to May 31, 2016. However, the Board is not bound by any determination of the Director. Anderson v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 423 (2009). Additionally, the ultimate responsibility for determining the effects of disabilities on the question of employability rests with the adjudicator and not a medical examiner. See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). To establish a total disability rating based on individual unemployability, there must be impairment so severe that it is impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.340. In reaching such a determination, the central inquiry is whether the claimant’s service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability. Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Total disability will be considered to exist 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; provided that permanent total disability shall be taken to exist when the impairment is reasonably certain to continue throughout the life of the disabled person. 38 C.F.R. § 4.15. For a Veteran to prevail on a claim for a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability, the record must reflect some factor, which takes this case outside the norm. The sole fact that a Veteran is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. A high rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment, but the ultimate question is whether the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the Veteran can find employment. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). The earliest record in the Veteran’s claims file that discusses any aspects of employability dates from May 2003, just shortly after his initial date of service connection of his lumbar back disability, which derives from an application for Social Security disability dating back to 1995. That medical examiner noted the Veteran had chronic back pain, but also injuries from when a gas can blew up on him in early 2003, burning his chest, abdomen, right back and right side. The Veteran had previously had a portion of his sternum removed about 1988 due to a sports injury, and had had multiple surgeries on his right shoulder area going back to 1994, of unknown etiology. This medical examiner also noted a previous diagnosis of depression and a long history of substance and alcohol abuse. The Veteran had previously sought service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder but had been denied, and the Veteran never appealed that decision. The Veteran also showed a history of cardiac problems, to include congestive heart failure. Again, the Veteran had sought but was denied service connection for cardiac issues, and never appealed that denial. The Veteran’s earliest VA examination for his lumbar spine dates from June 2003. This examiner noted the Veteran’s lumbar spine damage from active service, along with complaints of pain, weakness, stiffness, fatigability, and lack of endurance. The examiner noted the Veteran’s obesity interfered with his spinal movement testing, and the Veteran himself refused parts of the examination for unknown reason. This examiner made no comments about any functional impact of the Veteran’s lumbar spine condition. The next VA examination for the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability pertinent to the period on appeal is in July 2012. Here, the VA examiner made two diagnoses upon examination of the Veteran: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, and intervertebral disc syndrome with radiculopathy and left sciatic nerve involvement. The Veteran reported “daily, constant pain” but no flare-ups. Range of motion measurements forward flexion limited to 50 degrees, extension limited to 5 degrees, right and left lateral flexion limited to 15 degrees each, right and left lateral rotation each limited to 5 degrees, with combined range of motion limited to 95 degrees with pain. The range of motion was not additionally limited following repetitive use. Functional impairment included pain on movement and less movement than normal. The Veteran reported pain and tenderness upon palpation of the L3-S1 area of the lumbar spine. Muscle strength and reflexes were considered normal. There is no evidence of spasms, atrophy, guarding, or weakness on examination. The Veteran was unwilling to lay down on the table and thus the examiner was unable to observe the straight leg raising test. There were no flare-ups reported or observed. X-rays of the spine from November 2011 indicated disc protrusion at L4-L5 with bilateral foraminal extension, causing mild central canal stenosis. The examiner reported that the Veteran has IVDS of the lumbar spine, but that there had been no incapacitating episodes in the past 12 months. The Veteran reported he ambulates with a cane. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability limited his ability to work by limiting his ability to lift no more than 25 pounds and limiting his ability to walk to 50 yards. The examiner also noted the Veteran can walk no more than one hour in an 8-hour day, can sit no longer than 20 minutes at a time, and could stand no more than one hour in an 8-hour day. The Veteran received another VA examination for his lumbar back in May 2016. This examiner updated the Veteran’s diagnosis to degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease with intermittent bilateral sciatica. The examiner described the Veteran’s pain being located in the lumbar spinal and lumbar muscle areas on both sides, and the Veteran reported flareups occurring two to three times a week, lasting several hours. Range of motion measurements forward flexion limited to 30 degrees, extension limited to 10 degrees, right lateral flexion limited to 15 degrees, left lateral flexion limited to 10 degrees, right and left lateral rotation each limited to 15 degrees, with combined range of motion limited to 95 degrees with pain. The range of motion was not additionally limited following repetitive use. Functional impairment included pain on movement, fatigue, and lack of endurance. The Veteran reported pain and tenderness upon palpation of the area of the lumbar spine. Muscle strength and reflexes were considered normal. The examiner noted guarding or muscle spasm of the lumbar spine, resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour, with a visual, slight curvature of the lumbar back described as concave to the left and convex to the right. The straight leg raising test was considered positive, and the examiner noted moderate radiculopathy in both lower extremities, with mild paresthesias in each lower extremity. The examiner reported here that the Veteran has no IVDS of the lumbar spine. The Veteran reported he ambulates with a cane. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability limited his ability to work by limiting his ability to lift no more than 8 pounds and limiting his ability to walk to roughly 10 yards. The examiner also noted the Veteran can walk no more than 20-30 minutes in an 8-hour day, can sit no longer than 30 minutes at a time, and could stand no more than 15-20 minutes in an 8-hour day. The examiner also noted the Veteran must change position every 5-10 minutes. The Board finds the medical and other evidence of record does not show the Veteran is precluded from securing and following gainful employment by his service-connected disabilities prior to May 31, 2016. To establish a total disability rating based on individual unemployability, there must be impairment so severe from service-connected disabilities that it is impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.340. The Veteran does not have a combined evaluation of at least 70 percent at any time, and no single disability at 60 percent or greater prior May 31, 2016. The highest schedular ratings reach a total combined evaluation of 40 percent effective January 5, 2012, prior to the Veteran’s TDIU award effective on May 31, 2016.. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s statements and that of his representative that he was unable to work prior to May 31, 2016. The Board also notes that the Director, Compensation Service observed the many non-service-connected disabilities of the Veteran, to include bilateral knee disabilities, resection of the sternum, hearing loss, sleep apnea, an acquired psychiatric disorder, hepatitis C, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and substance abuse. As noted, consideration may not be given to the impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. It is undisputed that the Veteran’s service-connected lumbar spine disability and lower left extremity radiculopathy resulted in at least some functional impairment, which could make it more difficult to find employment in the period prior to May 31, 2016. However, such interference is contemplated in the assigned ratings for the Veteran’s service-connected disability, and the evidence of record does not demonstrate that his service-connected disability result in unemployability in the appeal period on either a schedular or extraschedular basis. The Board notes and acknowledges the limitations of the Veteran’s diagnosed bilateral knee disabilities, resection of the sternum, hearing loss, sleep apnea, an acquired psychiatric disorder, hepatitis C, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and substance abuse. However, those disabilities are not service-connected. In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the Veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his age or to any impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; see Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). While not binding on the Board, the Board notes with great probative weight the negative opinion regarding entitlement to a TDIU prior to May 31, 2016 from the Director, Compensation Service, as discussed above. See Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999); Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998); see also Claiborne v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 181, 186 (2005). The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, employment history, educational and vocational attainment, and all other factors having a bearing on the issue have been addressed. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Thus, prior to May 31, 2016, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the service-connected disabilities alone render the Veteran unemployable. The Board notes and acknowledges the limitations of the Veteran’s other diagnosed conditions. However, those other physical disabilities are not service-connected, and are thus not pertinent to the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU. In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the Veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his age or to any impairment caused by non-service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; see Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Under these circumstances, the Board concludes that schedular or extraschedular TDIU prior to May 31, 2016 is not warranted. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56 (1990). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369–70 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). MICHAEL A. PAPPAS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Setter, 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.