Citation Nr: 21010157 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 08-26 875 DATE: February 24, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period prior to January 25, 2010 for a left ankle disability is denied. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the period from January 25, 2010 to June 1, 2015 for a left ankle disability is denied. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period from June 1, 2015 forward for a left ankle disability is denied. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for erosive gastropathy is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. For the period prior to January 25, 2010, the Veteran’s left ankle disability was not manifested by ankylosis, marked limited motion, malunion of the os calcis or astragalus, or astragalectomy. 2. For the period from January 25, 2010 to June 1, 2015, the Veteran’s left ankle disability has been productive of complaints of pain and marked loss of range of motion; however, ankylosis of the right ankle has not been demonstrated by X-ray findings or by analogous functional loss. 3. For the period from June 1, 2015, the Veteran’s left ankle disability was not manifested by ankylosis, marked limited motion, malunion of the os calcis or astragalus, or astragalectomy. 4. The Veteran’s erosive gastropathy has not been manifested by periodic or continuous pain unrelieved by standard ulcer therapy with periodic vomiting, recurring melena or hematemesis, and weight loss, totally incapacitating or with less pronounced and less continuous symptoms with definite impairment of health. 5. The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, without consideration of his age or non-service-connected disabilities, do not prevent the Veteran from obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period prior to January 25, 2010 for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5271. 2. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the period from January 25, 2010 to June 1, 2015 for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, DC 5271. 3. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period from June 1, 2015 forward for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, DC 5271. 4. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for erosive gastropathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.114, DC 7306. 5. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.10, 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 1977 to August 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2007 and December 2017 rating decisions of the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran testified at a March 2016 travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), and a hearing transcript is of record. In October 2017, VA sent a letter to the Veteran notifying him that the VLJ who conducted the hearing was no longer available to decide his case and asked him whether he desired to have another hearing. In November 2017, the Veteran responded that he did not want an additional hearing. However, due to an administrative mistake, the Veteran was offered, and attended, an additional hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2020. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board notes that the issue of whether the RO improperly reduced the Veteran’s disability rating for his left ankle beginning on June 1, 2015 is no longer before the Board. The issue was remanded by the Board for the RO to issue a Statement of the Case (SOC) in January 2018. The RO issued a SOC in December 2019. The Veteran did not file a timely appeal of the SOC. Additionally, the Board notes that the issues of entitlement to an increased rating for the Veteran’s left ankle disability and entitlement to TDIU were previously remanded by the Board in December 2016 and January 2018. In consideration of the appeal, the Board is satisfied there was substantial compliance with the remand directives and will proceed with review. See, Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Increased Rating Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based, as far as can practically be determined, on the average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Each service-connected disability is rated on the basis of specific criteria identified by Diagnostic Codes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.27. When rating the Veteran’s service-connected disability, the entire medical history must be borne in mind. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). The Court has held that a claimant may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability that might result in different levels of compensation from the time the increased rating claim was filed until a final decision is made. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Separate evaluations may be assigned for separate periods of time if such distinct periods are shown by the competent evidence of record during the appeal, a practice known as “staged” ratings. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). Regulations require that where there is a question as to which of two evaluations is to 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. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, painful motion is an important factor of joint disability and actually painful joints are entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. This regulation also requires that, whenever possible, the joints involved are tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016). Where functional loss is alleged due to pain upon motion, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 and § 4.45 must be considered. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 207-08 (1995). Within this context, a finding of functional loss due to pain must be supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior of the claimant. Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80, 85 (1997). Pain itself does not rise to the level of functional loss as contemplated by § 4.40 and § 4.45 but may result in functional loss only if it limits the ability to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal. 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period prior to January 25, 2010 for a left ankle disability The Veteran’s left ankle disability has been rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5271. Ratings under this code are available at 10 percent for moderate limited motion and 20 percent for marked limited motion. Prior to February 7, 2021, the terms “moderate” and “marked” are not defined under VA regulations. Those terms also do not appear to have a generally accepted medical definition. Rather than applying a mechanical formula, the Board must evaluate all of the evidence to the end that its decisions are “equitable and just.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.6. It should also be noted that use of terminology such as “moderate” by VA examiners and others, although evidence to be considered by the Board, is not dispositive of an issue. All evidence must be evaluated in arriving at a decision regarding an increased rating. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.6. Normal ankle motion is dorsiflexion to 20 degrees, and plantar flexion to 45 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Plate II. Alternative and additional Diagnostic Codes for the ankle are available under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, as follows: Under Diagnostic Code 5270, ankylosis of the ankle in plantar flexion less than 30 degrees is rated at 20 percent; ankylosis in plantar flexion between 30 and 40 degrees or in dorsiflexion between 0 and 10 degrees is rated at 30 percent; and ankylosis in plantar flexion at more than 40 degrees, in dorsiflexion at more than 10 degrees, or with abduction, adduction, inversion, or eversion deformity is rated at 40 percent. Under Diagnostic Code 5272, ankylosis of the subastragalar or tarsal joint is rated at 10 percent for ankylosis in good weight-bearing position and at 20 percent for ankylosis in poor weight-bearing position. Under Diagnostic Code 5273, malunion of the os calcis or astragalus is rated at 10 percent for moderate deformity and 20 percent for marked deformity. Under Diagnostic Code 5274, astragalectomy is rated at 20 percent. The Veteran had an examination for his left ankle disability in August 2007. X-rays show a slight narrowing of the anterior aspect of the left ankle joint with a moderately large anterior bone spur and a moderately sized posterior bone spur consistent with osteoarthritis or posttraumatic arthritis. Range of motion testing for the left ankle was 55 degrees for plantar flexion and 10 degrees for dorsiflexion. In a July 2009 statement, the Veteran stated that when the weather changes, he has extreme difficulty functioning. The Veteran further stated that his leg gives out and that the arthritis in his left leg and left ankle keeps him from doing things that he needs to do during the day. In statement from August 2009, the Veteran stated that he is still experiencing severe left ankle pain. The Veteran further reported increased pain medication dosage. Additionally, the Veteran reported having difficulty going up and down stairs, and having difficulty standing up and showering on his own. In a statement from August 2009, the Veteran’s fiancé stated that the Veteran’s left ankle condition has worsened, and he has become incapable of doing many everyday tasks such as keeping himself clean. She further stated that his left ankle occasionally gives out. The Veteran had another examination for his left ankle disability in August 2009. Range of motion testing for the left ankle was 35 degrees for plantar flexion and 10 degrees for dorsiflexion. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not have incapacitating flare-ups but noted that the Veteran has consistent daily pain. The examiner further noted that the Veteran’s left leg gives out unpredictably. There was no swelling, deformity, or localized tenderness of the left ankle. The Veteran reported using a cane for support. After a thorough review of the claims file, the Board finds that for the period prior to January 25, 2010, the Veteran’s left ankle disability symptoms most closely approximates the criteria for a 10 percent rating. The Board notes that during the period on appeal, the Veteran’s dorsiflexion was limited to at worst 10 degrees and plantar flexion was limited to at worst 35 degrees. The Board notes that the Veteran has complained of pain and instability associated with his left ankle disability. However, while the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, the medical evidence of record demonstrating his objective testing results are more probative. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay reports in determining the appropriate rating. In particular, the Board recognizes that the Veteran experiences of pain and instability. However, a 10 percent rating appropriately compensates for pain with some loss of motion. The symptomatology noted in the medical and lay evidence has been adequately addressed by the evaluation assigned and do not more nearly approximate the criteria for a higher evaluation. The Board has also considered all potentially applicable provisions of the rating schedule, whether or not they have been raised by the Veteran or the record, as required by Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). The evidence of record does not establish ankylosis of the Veteran’s ankle, ankylosis of the subastragalar or tarsal joint, malunion of the os calcis or astragalus, or astragalectomy during the period on appeal prior to January 25, 2010. Therefore, the Board finds no basis upon which to assign increased disability ratings for the period on appeal prior to January 25, 2010. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DCs 5270, 5272-5274. 2. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the period from January 25, 2010 to June 1, 2015 for a left ankle disability The Veteran contends that his left ankle disability warrants a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the period on appeal from January 25, 2010 to June 1, 2015. The Veteran had an examination for his left ankle disability in August 2010. Range of motion of the left ankle revealed dorsiflexion of 10 degrees and plantar flexion to 40 degrees without painful limitation. The Veteran had another examination for his left ankle disability in August 2012. Range of motion of the left ankle revealed dorsiflexion of 10 degrees and plantar flexion to 35 degrees with evidence of painful motion. The Veteran was able to complete repetitive use testing without an additional loss of range of motion. The Veteran reported experiencing flare-ups of his left ankle, stating that he had pain and difficulty walking due to his ankle. The examiner noted that there was localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joints/soft tissue of the Veteran’s left ankle. There was no evidence of ankylosis. There was no evidence of “shin splints”, stress fractures, Achilles tendonitis, Achilles tendon rupture, malunion of calcaneus or talus, or talectomy. The Veteran reported regular use of a cane. The Veteran had another examination for his left ankle disability in June 2014. The Veteran reported experiencing pain in his ankles during weather changes, as well as pain with walking and standing. The Veteran denied experiencing flare-ups. Range of motion testing revealed normal ranges of motion for the Veteran’s left ankle. Repetitive use testing resulted in reduced range of motion to 40 degrees plantar flexion. There was no evidence of ankylosis. There was no evidence of “shin splints”, stress fractures, Achilles tendonitis, Achilles tendon rupture, malunion of calcaneus or talus, or talectomy. The Veteran reported regular use of a cane. In an October 2014 statement, the Veteran stated that uses a cane and that his ankle “goes out”. The Veteran further stated that he is unable to climb stairs without stopping and resting. In private treatment records from October 2014 indicate that the Veteran has significant left ankle pain and swelling. As noted above, the 20 percent rating that has been in effect during the appeal period from January 25, 2010 to June 1, 2015 is the maximum rating available under Diagnostic Code 5271. This rating contemplates the Veteran’s marked limitation of motion caused by his service-connected left ankle disability symptoms to include pain. Where a musculoskeletal disability is evaluated at the highest schedular evaluation available based upon limitation of motion, as in this case, a DeLuca analysis is foreclosed. Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80 (1997). Higher ratings are only available for the ankle when ankylosis is present. The record does not show, nor does the Veteran contend that his left ankle disability manifests in ankylosis. See Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 94 (31st ed. 2007) (ankylosis is the “immobility and consolidation of a joint due to disease, injury, or surgical procedure.”). Since the Veteran is able to move his ankle, no additional range of motion testing during flares or after repetitive use would avail the Veteran. The Board adds that there is no medical or lay evidence of subastragalar or tarsal joint, malunion of os calcis or astragalus, or astragalectomy to warrant a higher or separate rating under the other Diagnostic Codes referable to the evaluation of the ankle disabilities. In this regard, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Veteran is capable of left ankle motion, albeit limited. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay assertions of painful motion, limited motion, swelling and intermittent locking but finds that such symptoms are specifically contemplated by the current 20 percent rating, which accounts for the functional impact of “marked” limitation of motion caused by his reported symptoms. Thus, the evidence is against a finding that a rating higher than the currently assigned 20 percent is warranted for the Veteran’s service-connected left ankle disability for the period on appeal from January 25, 2010 to June 1, 2015. 3. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period from June 1, 2015 for a left ankle disability The Veteran contends that his left ankle disability warrants a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period on appeal from June 1, 2015. At the March 2016 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he has significant left ankle pain. The Veteran further testified that he cannot walk for long, that his ankle will swell, and that it occasionally gives out. The Veteran also testified that he was issued a cane because his left leg gives out. Additionally, the Veteran testified that he has more bad days than good days with his left ankle. The Veteran had an examination for his left ankle disability in April 2017. Range of motion of the left ankle revealed dorsiflexion of 10 degrees and plantar flexion to 30 degrees. Pain was noted on examination that resulted in functional loss. The Veteran reported experiencing flare-ups, stating that “it gives out”, and that during a flare-up he has no balance, occasional swelling, and a sharp shooting pain. The Veteran further reported that he is unable to walk for a few minutes during a flare-up. There was objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissue. The Veteran was able to complete repetitive use testing without an additional loss of range of motion. The examiner noted that there were additional contributing factors of disability, principally instability of station, disturbance of locomotion, and interference with standing. There was noted reduced muscle strength of the Veteran’s left ankle. There was no evidence of muscle atrophy. There was no evidence of ankylosis. There was no evidence of “shin splints”, stress fractures, Achilles tendonitis, Achilles tendon rupture, malunion of calcaneus or talus, or talectomy. The Veteran reported constant use of a cane and occasional use of a brace. The examiner noted that there was objective evidence of pain with non-weight-bearing. In a July 2017 statement, the Veteran stated that he was having issues with severe swelling of his left ankle. The Veteran further reported frequent use of a brace as well as constant use of a cane. The Veteran also reported that the pain in his left ankle had become unbearable. At the November 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he does not have much motion in his left ankle. He further testified that his ankle swells up and needs to walk with a cane due to his ankle condition. The Veteran had another examination for his left ankle disability in December 2020. Range of motion of the left ankle revealed dorsiflexion of 5 degrees and normal plantar flexion to 45 degrees. Pain was noted on examination that resulted in functional loss. The Veteran denied experiencing flare-ups. The Veteran reported having functional loss, stating that he cannot walk, lift, carry, or stand for long periods of time without aggravating his left ankle. There was no objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissue. There was evidence of pain with weight-bearing. There was no objective evidence of crepitus. The Veteran was able to complete repetitive use testing without an additional loss of range of motion. There was no evidence of muscle atrophy. There was no evidence of ankylosis. There was no evidence of “shin splints”, stress fractures, Achilles tendonitis, Achilles tendon rupture, malunion of calcaneus or talus, or talectomy. The Veteran reported regular use of a cane. There was objective evidence of pain on passive range of motion testing of the left ankle and objective evidence of pain with non-weight bearing. After a thorough review of the claims file, the Board finds that for the period since from June 1, 2015, the Veteran’s left ankle disability symptoms most closely approximates the criteria for a 10 percent rating. The Board notes that during the period on appeal, the Veteran’s dorsiflexion was limited to at worst 5 degrees and plantar flexion was limited to at worst 30 degrees. Although the Veteran has complained of pain and instability associated with his left ankle disability, the Board finds the evidence of record most closely approximates the criteria for a 10 percent rating and a higher rating is not warranted. The Board notes that effective February 7, 2021, the regulation regarding rating ankle disabilities was amended, adding information to DC 5271. Specifically, the changes were made to define marked and moderate under the Schedule. Moderate is defined as less than 15 degrees dorsiflexion or less than 30 degrees plantar flexion. Marked is defined as less than 5 degrees dorsiflexion or less than 10 degrees plantar flexion. Changes in regulation may not be applied prior to their effective dates. The evidence of record does not include relevant medical findings after that effective date. The Board has also considered all potentially applicable provisions of the rating schedule, whether or not they have been raised by the Veteran or the record, as required by Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). The evidence of record does not establish ankylosis of the Veteran’s ankle, ankylosis of the subastragalar or tarsal joint, malunion of the os calcis or astragalus, or astragalectomy during the period on appeal from June 1, 2015. Therefore, the Board finds no basis upon which to assign increased disability ratings for the period on appeal from June 1, 2015. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DCs 5270, 5272-5274. 4. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for erosive gastropathy The Veteran contends that his erosive gastropathy warrants a disability rating in excess of 40 percent. The Board notes that there is no specific diagnostic code applicable to erosive gastropathy, and that the Veteran’s condition is rated under DC 7306 because it is the most analogous. Under DC 7306, a 40 percent rating is assigned for moderately severe impairment in the form of intercurrent episodes of abdominal pain at least once a month, partially or completely relieved by ulcer therapy, or mild and transient episodes of vomiting or melena. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114, DC 7306. A 100 percent rating is assigned for pronounced impairment in the form of periodic or continuous pain unrelieved by standard ulcer therapy with periodic vomiting, recurring melena or hematemesis, and weight loss, that is totally incapacitating. Id. A 60 percent rating is assigned for severe impairment in the form of the same symptoms as the 100 percent rating, but less pronounced, less continuous, and with definite impairment of health. Id. Medical treatment records from October 2017 note that the Veteran had a total colectomy. The Veteran had an examination for his erosive gastropathy in October 2017. The examiner noted that the Veteran had a diagnosis of gastroduodenitis and gastroduodenopathy. The Veteran indicated that the average duration of episodes of his symptoms was less than one day. The Veteran reported abdominal pain that occurred at least monthly and was relieved by standard ulcer therapy. The Veteran also reported mild nausea that occurred four or more times per year, that would last for less than one day on average. The Veteran denied experiencing incapacitating episodes. The examiner indicated that the Veteran also has Crohn’s disease and underwent a total colectomy in 2017. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s erosive gastropathy was of mild severity. The examiner further stated that the Veteran has a confounding gastrointestinal symptomatology and that it is improbable that one can assign any present gastrointestinal complaints to the service-connected gastroduodenopathy. Private treatment records from December 2017 note treatment for anemia. The Veteran’s physician noted that there had not been any hematemesis or hematochezia and the ostomy output had been “fairly normal”. The Veteran denied nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, hematuria, and weight loss. The Veteran had another examination for his erosive gastropathy in July 2019. The examiner noted that the Veteran had a diagnoses of Helicobacter pylori and gastroduodenopathy. The examiner noted that the Veteran had a colectomy due to Crohn’s disease in 2017. The examiner indicated that the Veteran’s treatment plan included taking continuous medication for his condition. The Veteran reported experiencing recurring symptoms four or more times per year that would last on average less than one day. The Veteran further reported experiencing abdominal pain that occurs at least monthly and is relieved by standard ulcer therapy. The Veteran also indicated that that he has periodic nausea that occurs four or more times per year with an average duration of less than one day. The Veteran denied having incapacitating episodes. The examiner opined that the Veteran has Crohn’s disease and that any ongoing symptoms are likely related to that diagnosis and not gastroduodenitis based on a clinical setting. VA treatment records from February 2019 note that the Veteran felt well and denied abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, change in ostomy output or weight loss. At the November 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he took Naproxen during his active service which caused stomach erosion. The Veteran further testified that within time this caused his Crohn’s disease as well as his intestinal blockage and colostomy bag. The Veteran had another examination in the form of an intestinal conditions disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) in December 2020. The examiner indicated that the Veteran had a diagnosis of Crohn’s disease. The examiner indicated that the Veteran did not experience weight loss, vomiting, or anemia related to his intestinal condition. After carefully considering the entire record in light of the applicable rating criteria, the Board finds that a rating in excess of 40 percent is not warranted for the Veteran’s erosive gastropathy. The evidence of record indicates that the Veteran’s erosive gastropathy has been manifested by periodic pain despite the use of medication and nausea. However, there is no evidence in the record of recurring melena or hematemesis during the period on appeal. The criteria for a 60 percent or 100 percent rating are differentiated by the frequency and severity of symptoms, as well has the degree of impairment of health, but both ratings have among their requirements recurring melena or hematemesis. Without any evidence of those symptoms, the criteria for a rating in excess of 40 percent are not met. In sum, there is no basis for an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for the Veteran’s erosive gastropathy. The preponderance of the evidence is against any higher rating. 5. Entitlement to a TDIU The Veteran contends that his service-connected disabilities have rendered him unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. Total disability will be considered to exist where there is present any impairment of mind and body that is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.340. Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, provided that the Veteran meets the schedular requirements. If there is only one service-connected disability, this disability should be rated at 60 percent or more; if there are two or more disabilities, at least one should be rated at 40 percent or more with sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combination to 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the Veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but it may not be given to his age or to any impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. In determining whether unemployability exists, consideration may be given to the Veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but it may not be given to his age or to any impairment caused by nonservice connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. In this case, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities include erosive gastropathy, rated as 40 percent from September 16, 2005; low back strain rated as 10 percent from January 25, 2001, 20 percent from March 20, 2002, and 10 percent from April 30, 2019; left lower extremity radiculopathy rated as 10 percent from December 27, 2006, 20 percent from January 25, 2010, and 10 percent from February 13, 2012; left ankle residuals rated as 10 percent from January 25, 2001, 20 percent from January 25, 2010, and 10 percent from June 1, 2015. The Veteran’s combined disability rating, therefore, is 70 percent from January 25, 2010 to June 1, 2015. Accordingly, the Veteran does qualify for a schedular TDIU because his service-connected disabilities meet the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) for the period on appeal from January 25, 2010 to June 1, 2015. The Veteran completed a VA form 21-8940 in December 2006, indicating that he last worked full time in October 2006. The Veteran reported that he attended some college. The Veteran reported working in a mill in 1989. The Veteran further reported that he worked several jobs between January 1998 and October 2006, including working as a manager, a maintenance worker, and an automotive worker. The Veteran further stated that the effect or side effects of the medications taken for service-connected disabilities leave him unable to function. The Veteran stated that he is unable to work because of this medication and employers will not hire him because of the effects of this medication on his ability to work. The Veteran completed another VA form 21-8940 in June 2007 indicating that he attempted to gain employment in April 2007 and the U.S. Postal Service. The Veteran further stated that he has difficulty standing and sitting for long periods due to his back and left ankle disabilities. In a June 2007 VA form 21-4192, one of the Veteran’s former employers noted that Veteran was able to function at one hundred percent and that the Veteran was terminated from his position in April 2006 due to insubordination. The Veteran completed another VA form 21-8940 in May 2011. The Veteran reported that he previously worked for the U.S. Postal Service, and as a lead staff manager at a rehabilitation center. The Veteran reported attending business school and graduating in May 2011. In a VA form 21-8940, the Veteran reported that he worked as a carpenter in 1982. He also reported that he cannot work due to his back condition. The Veteran completed another VA form 21-8940 in May 2019. He stated that he previously worked as a welder from 1982 to 1987. He reported that he last worked full-time in March 2008. A May 2011 decision by the Social Security Administration (SSA) indicated that the Veteran has been disabled since November 5, 2008. The SSA decision noted that the Veteran had several severe impairments including diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, lumbar degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy, left hip degenerative joint disease, obesity, marijuana abuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Furthermore, the SSA decision noted that the Veteran has the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work, except the Veteran must be able to use a cane and cannot interact with the public. In a March 2012 examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s daily symptoms related to his erosive gastropathy consist of nausea and distention on a single drug regimen that arguably could be more aggressively pursued and expanded. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s erosive gastropathy symptoms do not render him unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. In an August 2012 examination for the Veteran’s left ankle disability, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s left ankle disability did not preclude him from seeking and gaining gainful employment. The examiner stated that the Veteran was able to perform desk work. In a January 2013 medical opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s radiculopathy disability does not prevent him from gaining employment. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s radiculopathy would make performing work requiring prolonged standing or walking more than five minutes difficulty. However, the examiner stated that the Veteran would be able to perform more sedentary desk type work. A June 2014 examination for the Veteran’s erosive gastropathy indicated that his service-connected gastropathy disability did not impact his ability to work. A June 2014 examination for the Veteran’s back disability indicated that his service-connected back disability did not impact his ability to work. Additionally, a June 2014 examination for the Veteran’s ankle disability indicated that his condition did not impact his ability to work. In VA treatment records from April 2016, the Veteran’s physician stated that the Veteran has multiple diagnoses that limit his activities and leads to his inability to gain active employment. The Veteran’s physician further noted that He is unable to sit or stand for long periods of time due to his chronic pain and Crohn’s disease. At the Veteran’s March 2016 Board hearing, he testified that he graduated from technical college in 2011 but did not go into his field because he was awarded social security disability. Additionally, the Veteran testified that prior to that he was a manager at a rehabilitation center for special needs patients. The Veteran testified that he had staff to go out and take care of their personal needs. He further testified that he was eliminated from that job. Additionally, the Veteran testified that he also worked as a machinist. The Veteran testified that he cannot sit or stand for long periods due to his disabilities. Additionally, the Veteran testified that he has an associate degree in business and secondary marketing. An April 2017 ankle examination noted that the Veteran’s left ankle disability impacts his ability to work. The examiner stated that the Veteran cannot stand or walk for long periods. An October 2017 erosive gastropathy examination noted that the Veteran’s service-connected condition did not impact his ability to work. A July 2019 erosive gastropathy examination noted that the Veteran’s condition would impact his ability to work. Specifically, the examiner stated that the Veteran would be unable to weld on days when his stomach pain was active. In a March 2020 letter, the Veteran’s physician, Dr. O.H., stated that the Veteran has numerous medical problems including chronic kidney disease, renal cell carcinoma, Crohn’s disease, wears ileostomy tube, diabetes mellitus type II, lumbar radiculopathy, generalized arthritis, and total right hip replacement. Dr. O.H. opined that the Veteran is unable to work at this time. The Veteran had another hearing before the Board in November 2020. The Veteran testified that he tried to work about four years ago. The Veteran further testified that he has been on social security disability since 2011, stating that he has social security disability with all the injuries that he has including diabetes, high blood pressure and all the other surgeries. Furthermore, the Veteran testified that he has limitations on walking, standing, and sitting for extended periods of time. He also testified that he has trouble sleeping due to his colostomy bag, stating that he gets up every half hour because the bag fills up. The Veteran further testified that he previously worked in a mill and stopped working there when it closed in 1995. In a December 2020 ankle examination, the examiner stated that the Veteran cannot walk, lift, carry, or stand for long periods without aggravating his left ankle pain. A December 2020 intestinal condition examination noted that the Veteran has to use the bathroom frequently, which makes focusing on work very difficult. Given the totality of the record, the Board finds that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities do not render him unemployable. The Board notes that the Veteran has mobility issues due to his left ankle, back, and radiculopathy disabilities. However, the probative medical evidence of record indicates that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone do not render him unemployable. The medical evidence of record consistently notes that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities impact his ability to work by limiting his ability to walk, stand, lift, and sit for extended periods. However, the medical evidence of record does not preclude the Veteran from working in an office setting. Furthermore, the Veteran has reported that he has attended some college and that he has an employment background as a manager. Based on the Veteran’s education and employment history, he likely has sufficient transferable skills to secure and maintain employment. Ultimately, Veteran’s service-connected disabilities do not render him unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran’s reported inability to work appears to be attributable in significant part to non-service-connected conditions. Specifically, the Veteran testified that he is unable to work in part due to his colostomy bag. However, the medical evidence of record indicates that this symptom is the result of his Crohn’s disease, which is not service-connected. Additionally, the March 2020 letter from Dr. O.H. specifically listed numerous medical problems that are not service-connected including chronic kidney disease, renal cell carcinoma, diabetes mellitus type II, and a right hip condition. Furthermore, the Board recognizes that the Veteran has been in receipt of SSA disability benefits. However, SSA determinations, while probative, are not binding on the Board, as they involve the application of different legal standards. See Collier v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 413 (1991). Specifically, the May 2011 SSA decision that determined the Veteran was capable of no more than sedentary work activity, considered non-service-connected disabilities as well as the Veteran’s age, which are factors that VA cannot consider. Additionally, the Veteran’s representative has raised the issue of an extraschedular TDIU. Since the Veteran’s combined rating did not meet the percentage standards of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) for portions of the appeal period, the claim for a TDIU may be considered only under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b) on an extraschedular basis for those periods on appeal. An extraschedular TDIU may be assigned in exceptional cases to a veteran who is found to be unemployable because of service-connected disabilities but does not meet the percentage standards set forth in § 4.16(a); in such cases, the rating authority should refer the matter to the Director of the Compensation Service for extraschedular TDIU consideration. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). The Board concludes that referral for an extraschedular TDIU is not warranted in this case. Consideration has been given to the fact that the Veteran has a mobility issues and that his erosive gastropathy interferes with his daily activities; however, the Veteran has skills, as shown by his prior work experience, that the Board finds would not preclude his ability to secure and follow gainful employment. The Veteran has attended some college and has previously worked in a managerial role. The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone would not preclude the Veteran from all forms of employment, given his work history, which demonstrates his ability to work in an office or managerial role. Accordingly, the Board finds referral of the Veteran’s TDIU claim for extraschedular consideration is not warranted. In short, the Board finds that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities do not render him unemployable. Accordingly, entitlement to a TDIU is not warranted and the claim is denied. Bethany L. Buck Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board David M. Sebstead, 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.