Citation Nr: 21011588 Decision Date: 03/02/21 Archive Date: 03/02/21 DOCKET NO. 14-37 805 DATE: March 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 20 percent for service-connected lumbosacral osteoarthritis prior to April 3, 2015 is granted. Entitlement to a disability rating of 40 percent for service-connected lumbosacral osteoarthritis, from April 3, 2015 to May 8, 2017, is granted. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected lumbosacral osteoarthritis from May 9, 2017 is denied. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected radiculitis of the lower right extremity is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The most probative medical evidence of record demonstrates that prior to April 3, 2015 the Veteran had muscle spasms and straightening of the spinal curvature. 2. The most probative medical evidence of record demonstrates that the flexion of the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine was limited to, at most, 25 degrees from April 3, 2015 to May 8, 2017. 3. The most probative medical evidence of record demonstrates that, from May 9, 2017, the flexion of the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine has been limited to, at most, 50 degrees. 4. The most probative medical evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran’s right lower radiculopathy manifested in symptoms comparable to incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve, of mild severity. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to an initial disability rating of 20 percent for service-connected lumbosacral osteoarthritis, prior to April 3, 2015, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5242, 5243. 2. The criteria for entitlement to a 40 percent disability rating for service-connected lumbosacral osteoarthritis, from April 3, 2015 to May 8, 2017, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5242, 5243. 3. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected lumbosacral osteoarthritis from May 9, 2017 to present have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5242, 5243. 4. The criteria for entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected radiculitis of the lower right extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 2007 to December 2009. By way of background, these matters were previously before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) most recently in August 2020, at which time the Board remanded the claims to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) in order to afford the Veteran new VA medical examinations to assess and document the current severity of the disabilities on appeal. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with its remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board notes that it has reviewed all the evidence of record, with an emphasis on the evidence relevant to this appeal. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting its decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence in the record. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that VA must review the entire record but does not have to discuss every piece of evidence). Therefore, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence where appropriate and the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, with regard to the Veteran’s claims. Increased Disability Ratings Disability evaluations are determined by application of the criteria set forth in VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on average impairment in earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. An evaluation of the level of disability present must also include consideration of the functional impairment of the veteran’s ability to engage in ordinary activities, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. When a question arises as to which of two ratings apply under a particular diagnostic code, the higher evaluation is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt that may remain is to be resolved in favor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The veteran’s entire medical history is to be considered when assigning a disability evaluation. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; see also Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994). 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). As an initial matter, the Board points out that the Veteran has already been granted a total rating based on individual unemployability effective the day after his separation from service. The grants and denials below will not change his compensation, as he is already in receipt of maximum VA compensation at the 100 percent level. 1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected lumbosacral osteoarthritis prior to April 3, 2015 When evaluating any musculoskeletal disability based upon range of motion, consideration is given to the degree of any additional limitation of motion due to functional loss. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 204-07 (1995). This includes the analysis of additional functional impairment above and beyond the limitation of motion objectively demonstrated, involving such factors as painful motion, weakness, incoordination, fatigability, etc., particularly during times when these symptoms “flare up,” assuming these factors are not already contemplated in the governing rating criteria. Id.; see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, and 4.59. Disabilities of the spine, including osteoarthritis, are rated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, 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 an injury or disease. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. The General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine provides, in pertinent part, that a 10 percent disability rating is assigned for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees; muscle spasm, guarding, or localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; or vertebral body fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of the height. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Code 5237. A 20 percent disability rating is assigned for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; for a combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or for 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 disability rating is assigned for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine limited to 30 degrees or less, or for favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent disability rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 100 percent disability rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. Notably, normal ranges of motion of the thoracolumbar spine are flexion from 0 degrees to 90 degrees, extension from 0 degrees to 30 degrees, lateral flexion from 0 degrees to 30 degrees bilaterally, and lateral rotation from 0 degrees to 30 degrees bilaterally. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate V; see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, Note 2. An alternative Formula for Rating is available for intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) based upon incapacitating episodes. A 10 percent rating is warranted for incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least one week but less than two weeks during the last 12 months of the applicable rating period. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Code 5243. A 20 percent rating is warranted for incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least two weeks, but less than four weeks, during the last 12 months of the applicable rating period. A 40 percent rating is warranted for incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least four weeks, but less than six weeks, during the last 12 months of the applicable rating period. A 60 percent rating is warranted for incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least six weeks during the last 12 months of the applicable rating period. Although VA recently amended numerous diagnostic codes dealing with musculoskeletal disabilities, the spine rating criteria described above were not changed. See 85 Fed. Reg. 76453 (Nov. 30, 2020) (effective Feb. 7, 2021). Here, the Veteran was awarded service connection for lumbosacral osteoarthritis in a July 2010 rating decision, which assigned a disability evaluation of 10 percent effective December 11, 2009. See rating decision dated July 15, 2010. The 10 percent disability evaluation was continued in a November 2011 rating decision; and in May 2012, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement with that decision. The November 2011 rating decision indicated it was in response to a May 2011 claim for an increase. However, although the Veteran did not explicitly disagree with the July 2010 rating decision, new and material evidence (July 2011 VA examination) was received within one year of that decision, rendering it not final. The RO recognized this in the 2014 Statement of the Case, when it phrased the issue as entitlement to a higher initial rating. The Veteran underwent a physical examination in February 2010, following his discharge from active duty service. See VA examination dated February 25, 2010. The examination revealed, in pertinent part, that the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine demonstrated the following ranges of motion: extension of 0 to 30 degrees; left lateral flexion of 0 to 30 degrees; left lateral rotation of 0 to 30 degrees; right lateral flexion of 0 to 15 degrees; and right lateral rotation of 0 to 30 degrees. Notably, the range of motion of flexion was not reported at that time. However, in an addendum from June 2010, the examiner provided that the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine flexion was 90 degrees. See VA examination addendum dated June 29, 2010. Based on the February 2010 VA examination and the June 2010 addendum, the Veteran’s combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine was 225 degrees. The examiner found objective evidence of pain on active range of motion testing. See VA examination dated February 25, 2010. Furthermore, the examiner observed objective evidence of pain following repetitive motion but not additional limitations after three repetitions of range of motion testing. No ankylosis was documented. Additionally, the examiner found no muscle spasm, localized tenderness, or guarding severe enough to cause abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour. However, it was also noted his gait was not normal as he was dragging his right leg. The Veteran relayed to the examiner that he had experienced one incapacitating episode of the thoracolumbar region during the past 12 months, which lasted 1-2 days and limited the Veteran’s ability to walk distances greater than one mile. When he established care with VA on December 8, 2010, the Veteran complained of back pain, and the examination showed “lumbago with spasm”. He was, in part, prescribed cyclobenzaprine for muscle spasms and an anti-inflammatory. Radiological imaging of the Veteran’s spine conducted in January 2011 indicated “straightening of the spine compatible with spasm” as well as mild disc desiccation at L4/5 and L5/1 and a mild disc bulge at L5/1 with minimal effacement of the anterior thecal sac and the right intervertebral nerve. See medical treatment records dated January 27, 2011. The bulging disc at L5/1 was observed to extend directly adjacent to, but did not compress, the left invertebral nerve. A pain management note documents that the Veteran’s lumbar pain required an epidural steroid in May 2011. See medical treatment records dated May 11, 2011. The Veteran underwent a physical evaluation in July 2011 that documented lumbar spine forward flexion of 0 to 45 degrees; extension of 0 to 25 degrees; and bilateral flexion and rotation of 0 to 30 degrees. See VA examination dated July 11, 2011. The ranges of motion were reportedly not additionally limited following repetitive use. No spasm, localized tenderness, or other “significant abnormality” was noted upon examination. Notably, however, the examiner reported that the Veteran “did not put forward full efforts in flexion.” Therefore, as the Veteran’s flexion may not have been as limited as the physical evaluation suggested, the Board finds the results of the July 2011 to be of limited probative value insofar as the limitation of the Veteran’s flexion is concerned. An MRI of the Veteran’s spine that was conducted in May 2013 revealed a disc protrusion at the L5-S1 level, which was observed to compress the thecal sac and proximal aspect of the right S1 nerve root. See medical treatment records dated May 21, 2013. In September 2014, the Veteran was prescribed physical therapy for continued pain. A physical therapist noted in September 2014 that the Veteran’s back exhibited range of motion deficits in flexion and extension, although the degree to which flexion and extension were limited was not documented. See medical treatment records dated September 24, 2014. In January and March 2015, the Veteran complained of exacerbations of his low back pain with sciatica. The Board concludes an initial 20 percent rating was warranted based on muscle spasms severe enough to cause an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour. The February 2010 VA examination showed the Veteran had an abnormal gait. While there was no indication that was due to muscle spasms, it must be noted that immediately upon registering with VA for medical care in December 2010, the Veteran had muscle spasms and he was prescribed medication. Then, imaging in January 2011 showed “straightening of the spine compatible with spasm”. The VA records throughout 2011 to 2015 show continued use of medication for muscle spasms, as well as exacerbations of pain, an epidural injection, and physical therapy. Such interventions are simply not consistent with the assigned 10 percent rating and indicate a greater severity. Considering the prescription for muscle spasms and the 2011 imaging results, a 20 percent rating was warranted. 2. From April 3, 2015 to May 8, 2017 Medical treatment records from April 2015 demonstrate that the Veteran’s lumbar disability caused, in relevant part, moderate loss of normal lordosis. See medical treatment records dated April 3, 2015. Additionally, the Veteran was reported to be “[s]everely hamstrung” with flexion of the thoracolumbar spine limited to 25 degrees. In October 2015 he was provided a TENS unit. The Veteran had a neurosurgical consult with Dr. Zhu of Sentara Neurosurgery Specialists and was referred to pain management for spinal cord stimulator trial, but in January 2016 he decided against this procedure. A new MRI of the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine was obtained in February 2016. See medical treatment records dated February 19, 2016. The treating physician observed “[m]ultilevel disc disease most pronounced at L5-S1 where there [was] a small broad-based disc protrusion with facet joint arthropathy without significant spinal canal narrowing and with moderate left and mild right neural foraminal narrowing.” Subsequently, the Veteran underwent a “minimally invasive” L5-S1 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in April 2016. See, e.g., medical treatment records dated May 24, 2016 and June 7, 2016. Following the procedure, pedicle rods and a disc spacer placed at the L5-S1 location resulted in normal vertebral body height and alignment. See medical treatment records dated June 7, 2016. No significant disc space narrowing was noted. Although the Veteran initially had functional difficulties after the surgery, by June 2016, he reported his neurosurgeon was pleased with his progress after the surgery. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the medical evidence warrants a disability rating of 40 percent for the Veteran’s lumbosacral osteoarthritis during the relevant time period, as the record reflects that the flexion of the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine was limited to 25 degrees. A disability evaluation of 50 percent is not supported by the record, as no evidence demonstrates that the Veteran experienced unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. Similarly, a disability evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5243 for incapacitating episodes of IVDS is not supported by the record. 3. From May 9, 2017 to present The RO assigned a 20 percent rating effective May 9, 2017, based on the results of a VA examination. At that time, a clinician reported that the Veteran’s lumbosacral osteoarthritis spinal disease manifested in flare-ups described as causing the Veteran difficulty standing for long periods of time and causing his back “to go out at any given time.” See VA Examination dated May 5, 2017. The Veteran verbalized functional loss or impairment insofar as the flare-ups prevent him from lifting any heavy items. The clinician noted that the Veteran’s statements regarding the functional loss of his flare-ups were neither medically consistent nor medically inconsistent with the findings of the examination. Pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination were not reported as significantly impacting functional ability with flare-ups. Thoracolumbar range of motion testing revealed forward flexion limited to 0 to 55 degrees; extension of 0 to 15 degrees; right and left lateral flexion of 0 to 20 degrees each; and right and left lateral rotation of 0 to 25 degrees each. The clinician observed that all ranges of motion caused the Veteran pain but that such pain did not result in or cause functional loss. The Veteran’s back demonstrated evidence of pain with weight bearing but did not demonstrate objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissues of the back. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive-use testing with at least three repetitions. No additional loss of function or range of motion was observed following repetitive-use testing. The Veteran’s back was not examined immediately after repetitive use over time. However, the clinician reported that the Veteran’s statements regarding functional loss with repetitive use over time were neither medically consistent nor medically inconsistent with the results of the physical examination. Pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination were not documented as significantly limiting functional ability of the thoracolumbar spine with repeated use over a period of time. No localized tenderness, guarding, or muscle spasm of the back were observed upon evaluation; and no additional factors contributing to the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine disability were noted. Furthermore, no ankylosis was observed. The Veteran relayed to the clinician that he regularly uses a cane due to his back disability. The clinician found that, due to the Veteran’s back disorder, there was no functional impairment of an extremity such that no effective function remained other than that which would be equally well-served by an amputation with prosthesis. The clinician reported that the functional impact of the Veteran’s back disability was that the Veteran was limited in his ability to lift objects. Passive range of motion of the back and non-weight bearing testing of the back were not performed because the clinician deemed it not medically appropriate, as such testing risked physical harm to the Veteran’s back. To assess the current severity of the Veteran’s lumbosacral osteoarthritis, the AOJ offered the Veteran another VA back examination in September 2020. See VA Examination dated September 22, 2020. The Veteran relayed to the examiner that his lumbosacral osteoarthritis results in flare-ups that limit his mobility due to pain with physical exertion, repetitive bending or lifting, and/or prolonged standing or walking. Although the Veteran was not assessed during a flare-up, the treating physician noted that the Veteran’s statements regarding functional loss during flare-ups were medically consistent with the physical findings of the examination. No pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination were reported to significantly limit functional ability with flare-ups. The thoracolumbar spine’s range of motion was limited to forward flexion from 0 to 50 degrees; extension from 0 to 10 degrees; right and left lateral flexion from 0 to 20 degrees; and right and left lateral rotation from 0 to 20 degrees. The limited range of motion contributed to functional loss insofar as the Veteran’s pain restricts his ability to complete movements requiring more complete ranges of motion. The Veteran’s back demonstrated pain at all the ranges of motion tested. The physician reported no evidence of pain with weight-bearing but observed objective evidence of mild tenderness to palpation along the lumbosacral spine and bilateral lumbar paraspinals muscle. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing with at least three repetitions; and no additional loss of function or range of motion after such repetitions was noted. Although the Veteran’s back was not evaluated immediately after repetitive use over time, the physician remarked that the Veteran’s statements concerning the functional loss with repetitive use over time were medically consistent with the findings of the examination. No pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination significantly limit the function ability of the back with repeated use over a period of time. The examiner found no ankylosis of the Veteran’s spine. The Veteran was noted to have IVDS of the thoracolumbar spine, although he did not experience episodes of acute signs and symptoms due to IVDS that required best rest prescribed by a physician. The Veteran did not report the use of any assistance devices to achieve a normal mode of locomotion. The Veteran’s back disability was observed not to cause functional impairment of an extremity such that no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well-served by an amputation with prosthesis. The Veteran’s back disability was noted to impact his ability to work in that the disorder causes moderate to severe limitations and/or effects related to pain with bending, lifting, prolonged standing, and/or prolonged walking. Regarding Correia criteria, the physician remarked that all range of motion testing reported during the examination was conducted using a goniometer on weightbearing. Passive range of motion testing was not performed in order to avoid hurting the Veteran; and non-weightbearing range of motion was also not performed. Turning to the application of the appropriate rating criteria, the Board concludes that the evidence of record does not support finding that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability warrants a rating in excess of 20 percent disabling. Specifically, a rating of 40 percent is not warranted because the medical evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s back disability results in limitation of motion of forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less or in favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine even when considering the functional effects of pain, to include after repetitive use. The medical findings do not suggest that the Veteran’s range of motion would change to the degree required for a higher rating after repetitive use, due to pain, or with weight bearing, nor does any other evidence of record, to include the Veteran’s lay statements. Additionally, the Veteran’s lumbar syndrome is not eligible for consideration under the IVDS rating criteria because the record indicates that, throughout the period on appeal, he has not experienced incapacitating episodes requiring bed rest prescribed by a physician. The Veteran’s lay statements have been considered. However, disability ratings are determined by the application of the rating schedule, which does not support a higher rating in this case. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. The record likewise does not reflect that a referral for consideration on an extraschedular basis would be appropriate under the circumstances of this appeal, as the Veteran’s disability picture as presented in the lay and medical evidence of record is adequately contemplated by the assigned schedular rating based on limitation of motion. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b). The Board has also considered whether there is any other basis for granting further increased and/or additional ratings based on the evidence of record but has found none. In sum, as the most probative evidence does not reach the level of equipoise, the claim of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the Veteran’s service-connected lumbosacral osteoarthritis, from May 9, 2017, may not be granted. Specifically, a disability rating of 40 percent is not warranted because the medical evidence does not indicate that the Veteran’s thoracolumbar flexion was limited to 30 degrees or less or that the Veteran experienced favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine, nor does the record reflect that the Veteran experienced incapacitating episodes of IVDS warranting a higher disability evaluation. 4. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected radiculitis of the lower right extremity The Veteran was granted service connection for radiculitis of the right lower extremity in an April 2014 rating decision, with a disability evaluation of 10 percent effective December 11, 2009. See rating decision dated April 25, 2014. He disagreed with that initial rating. The disability is rated under Diagnostic Code 8520 for impairment of the sciatic nerve. Under the criteria of Diagnostic Code 8520, a 10 percent rating is assigned for mild incomplete paralysis; a 20 percent rating is assigned for moderate incomplete paralysis; a 40 percent rating is assigned for moderately severe incomplete paralysis; and a 60 percent rating is assigned for severe incomplete paralysis, with marked muscular atrophy. An 80 percent rating is assigned for “complete” paralysis, where the foot dangles and drops, there is no active movement possible of muscles below the knee, and flexion of the knee is weakened or (very rarely) lost. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. The term “incomplete paralysis” indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type picture for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating should be for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree. Id. The Veteran relayed to a VA clinician in February 2010 that his lower back pain had gotten progressively worse over the last year, radiating downward toward his right leg; and for a period of time, the Veteran was reportedly unable to lift his right leg. See VA examination dated February 25, 2010. The Veteran told the clinician that, due to the pain, he had to stop exercising regularly. Testing of the lower extremities demonstrated no abnormal sensation; however, the clinician noted that proximal muscle strength of the Veteran’s right leg could not be accurately assessed at that time due to the lower back and hip pain on the Veteran’s right side. The Veteran further relayed to the clinician that his lower back pain did not radiate to other areas of his body. The Veteran reported to an examiner in March 2010 that pain from his lower back radiated downward toward his right thigh. See medical treatment records dated March 1, 2010. When he established care with VA on December 8, 2010, the Veteran complained of back pain with paresthesias down the legs, and the examination showed “L4/5 radiculopathy.” There was no indication, however, of any neurological deficits shown on the examination. He was started on Gabapentin for the neurological pain. Medical records also demonstrate that, in January 2011, an examiner documented that the Veteran experienced chronic lower back pain and that a straight leg raise test revealed “radicular symptoms” of the right lower extremity. See medical treatment records dated January 5, 2011. In May 2011, the pain caused by the Veteran’s lumbar radiculitis required him to receive a lumbar epidural steroid. See medical treatment records dated May 11, 2011. In a July 2011 examination, the Veteran’s straight leg raise test did not exhibit any radicular symptoms upon evaluation, nor was any radiculopathy observed. See VA examination dated July 6, 2011. A physical assessment conducted in September 2012 revealed that the Veteran did not experience numbness or tingling in his extremities at that time. See medical treatment records dated September 17, 2012. An MRI conducted in May 2013 showed a disc protrusion at the L5-S1 level that compressed the proximal aspect of the right S1 nerve root. See medical treatment records dated May 21, 2013. The Veteran was treated for chronic pain in April 2015, at which time he reported to a clinician that his sciatica radiated down his right leg to his calf. See medical treatment records April 3, 2015. He rated the pain as a 6 or 7 out of 10. At the time of his May 2017 back examination, the Veteran’s muscle strength testing demonstrated normal strength in all tested areas. No muscle atrophy was observed. Bilateral knee and ankle reflexes tested normal; and all areas tested during a sensory examination yielded normal results. The examiner reported that the Veteran experienced no radiculopathy. However, as the Veteran’s radiculopathy, specifically his mild sciatic nerve paralysis, is well-documented and a disability for which the Veteran is service-connected, the Board affords little probative value to the May 2017 medical report, insofar as it contains an inaccurate diagnosis. However, the objective findings therein are probative. Pursuant to the Board’s August 2020 remand directives, the Veteran was offered a new VA examination to assess the current severity of his right lower extremity radiculopathy. In September 2020, a physician examined the Veteran and determined that the Veteran’s disability manifested in mild, intermittent pain of the right lower extremity. See VA Examination dated September 22, 2020.The Veteran described persistent low back pain that occasionally radiates downward to the right thigh and leg. Muscle strength testing indicated normal strength in all areas tested. No muscle atrophy was noted upon examination. The Veteran’s reflexes tested normal; and a sensory examination conducted on the Veteran revealed normal results. The physician reported that the Veteran’s right sciatic nerve has incomplete paralysis of mild severity. The Board finds that the most probative medical evidence of record does not warrant the assignment of a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran’s radiculopathy of the lower right extremity for any time period on appeal. Specifically, a 20 percent disability evaluation is not warranted, as the record does not indicate that the Veteran has experienced incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve of a moderate nature at any time throughout the period on appeal. While he does experience radiating pain, his neurological condition has not resulted in mildly impaired muscle strength (4/5 in 2010 but otherwise normal), decreased reflexes, or sensory deficits. His subjective pain is therefore appropriately compensated by a 10 percent rating for a mild severity. The Board is grateful for the Veteran’s honorable service. However, given the record before it, the Board finds that evidence in this case does not reach the level of equipoise with respect to the claim for a higher rating for the right leg. To the extent possible, all reasonable doubt has been resolved in his favor in granting higher staged ratings for the lumbosacral osteoarthritis. MICHELLE KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Tolbert, 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.