Citation Nr: 21021643 Decision Date: 04/13/21 Archive Date: 04/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-61 775 DATE: April 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for right ear hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for dysthymic disorder, prior to December 30, 2011, and a rating in excess of 70 percent, thereafter, is denied. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability (TDIU) by reason of service-connected disabilities, prior to December 30, 2011 is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During the appellate period, the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss has been manifested by auditory acuity no worse than level "VIII," and there is no indication of an exceptional pattern of hearing impairment. 2. Prior to December 30, 2011, the Veteran's dysthymic disorder was manifested by no more than occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermitted periods of inability to perform occupational tasks due to such symptoms as depressed mood, anxiety, decreased concentration and chronic sleep impairment. 3. Beginning December 30, 2011, the Veteran's dysthymic disorder has been manifested by no more than occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to various symptoms; the symptoms do not result in both total occupational and social impairment. 4. The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not render him unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation prior to December 30, 2011. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a compensable rating for a right ear hearing loss disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 4.1, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code (DC) 6100. 2. The criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent for dysthymic disorder were not met prior to December 30, 2011. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9433. 3. The criteria for a rating in excess of 70 percent for dysthymic disorder have not been met for any period on appeal. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9433. 4. The criteria for a TDIU have not been met prior to December 30, 2011. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from December 1965 to September 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision, which denied the Veteran’s claims of a compensable rating for right ear hearing loss and a rating in excess of 30 percent for dysthymic disorder; that rating decision also denied the claim for a TDIU. The Veteran perfected a timely appeal to the above decision. Subsequently, in a December 2017 rating decision, the RO increased the rating for dysthymic disorder from 30 percent to 50 percent, effective December 30, 2011. In September 2020, the Board remanded the case to the RO for further evidentiary development. By a rating action in January 2021, the RO increased the rating for dysthymic disorder from 50 percent to 70 percent, effective December 30, 2011; that rating also granted the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU, effective December 30, 2011. A supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) was issued in January 2021. Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2019). The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10 (2019). In determining the severity of a disability, the Board is required to consider the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA benefits, whether or not they were raised by the Veteran, as well as the entire history of the Veteran's disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, 4.2 (2019); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991). If the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher of two ratings, the higher rating will be assigned; otherwise, the lower rating is assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2019). When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for right ear hearing loss The Veteran contends his right ear hearing loss warrants a compensable rating. Ratings for hearing loss are determined in accordance with the findings obtained on audiometric examinations. Ratings for hearing impairment range from 0 percent to 100 percent based on organic impairment of hearing acuity, as measured by the results of the controlled speech discrimination tests, together with the average hearing threshold level as measured by pure tone audiometry tests in the frequencies 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz. To rate the degree of disability from hearing impairment, the rating schedule establishes eleven auditory acuity levels designated from Level I for essentially normal acuity through Level XI for profound deafness. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diagnostic Code 6100. Hearing tests will be conducted without hearing aids, and the results of testing are charted on Table VI and Table VII. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Tables VI, VII. Exceptional patterns of hearing impairment are rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. When the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies of 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz is 55 decibels or more, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIa, whichever results in the higher numeral. Each ear will be evaluated separately. When the pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral for hearing impairment from Table VI or Table VIa, whichever is higher. That numeral will then be elevated to the next higher Roman numeral. Each ear will be evaluated separately. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86. An adequate evaluation of impairment of hearing acuity rests upon the results of controlled speech discrimination tests, together with tests of the average hearing threshold levels at certain specified frequencies. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, DC 6100. The assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment are to be derived by the mechanical application of the Ratings Schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometry evaluations are made. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992). If, as in the Veteran's case, impaired hearing loss is service-connected in only one ear, in order to determine the percentage evaluation, the nonservice-connected ear will be assigned a Roman Numeral designation for hearing impairment of Level I. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 (f). Service connection was established for right ear hearing loss in an August 2008 rating decision. A noncompensable rating was assigned at that time and has remained in place. Service connection is not in effect for left ear hearing loss. The present appeal involves the Veteran's December 2010 claim for an increased rating. Pursuant to his claim, the Veteran underwent a DBQ examination in May 2013. On the authorized audiological evaluation, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 25 15 70 105 105 LEFT 15 10 10 15 30 The average pure tone threshold was 74 in the right ear and 16 in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 60 percent in the right ear and 94 percent in the left ear. Applying the values above to Table VI results in a Level VII for the service-connected right ear, and a Level I for the left ear, due to being nonservice-connected. Application of these Roman numeral designations to Table VII results in a 0 percent, noncompensable, rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. On the occasion of another VA audiological evaluation in September 2017, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 30 30 85 105+ 105+ LEFT 25 25 25 30 50 The average pure tone threshold was 81.25 in the right ear and 32.5 in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 72 percent in the right ear and 94 percent in the left ear. Applying the values above to Table VI results in a Level VI for the service-connected right ear, and a Level I for the left ear, due to being nonservice-connected. Application of these Roman numeral designations to Table VII results in a 0 percent, noncompensable, rating. The record reflects that the Veteran was afforded a DBQ/VA audiological evaluation in December 2020. At that time, the Veteran indicated that he was unable to go anywhere without ear plugs, earmuffs, and hearing aids for protection from loud noises. The Veteran also reported that he was unable to hear speech clearly when there are others talking or if there’s background noise present. Pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 35 35 90 105+ 105+ LEFT 35 30 50 55 65 The average pure tone threshold was 84 in the right ear and 50 in the left ear. Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 64 percent in the right ear and 92 in the left ear. Applying the values above to Table VI results in a Level VIII for the service-connected right ear, and a Level I for the left ear, due to being nonservice-connected. Application of these Roman numeral designations to Table VII results in a 0 percent, noncompensable, rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. The Board has also considered whether a compensable evaluation for right ear hearing loss us warranted by applying the exceptional hearing pattern provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 to the above-referenced audiometric results. The December 2020 DBQ examination report shows that pure tone thresholds reported on the audiological evaluation were not 55 decibels or more at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) and were not recorded at 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz. Thus, the provision of 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 for exceptional patterns of hearing impairment do not apply to this examination. However, the May 2013 and September 2017 DBQ/VA examination reports show that the Veteran had pure tone thresholds of 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz and 70 decibels or more at the 2000 Hertz levels. Because the exceptional hearing pattern is shown, applying Table VIA, a Roman numeral VI is designated for the right ear. As the Veteran's left ear is not service connected, a Level I designation has been assigned in order to determine the percentage evaluation from Table VII. Application of the levels of hearing impairment in each ear to Table VII at 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 produces a noncompensable rating. As such, the exceptional hearing pattern do not result in a compensable evaluation for right ear hearing loss. The Veteran is competent and credible in reporting his symptoms and the functional impacts of his hearing loss. In Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017), however, the Court held that the rating criteria for hearing loss contemplates the functional effects of decreased hearing, which would include difficulty to hear clearly and distinguish certain sounds, as these are precisely the effects that VA's audiometric tests are designed to measure. Thus, when a Veteran's hearing loss results in an inability to hear or understand speech or to hear other sounds in various contexts, those effects are contemplated by the schedular rating criteria. Absent audiometric and speech discrimination scores showing the Veteran's hearing loss disability meets the schedular criteria for a compensable rating, his reported functional impairment does not otherwise provide a basis for such a rating. Id. In sum, for the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that there is no basis for a compensable schedular rating for his right ear hearing loss disability. The benefit sought on appeal is denied. 2. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for dysthymic disorder prior to December 30, 2011, and in excess of 70 percent on and after December 30, 2011. The Veteran essentially contends that his psychiatric disorder is more disabling than reflected by the ratings currently assigned. The rating for the Veteran's dysthymic disorder is determined by application of 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9433. Under that code, a 30 percent evaluation is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). A 50 percent rating requires occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as a flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short- and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. A 70 percent rating requires occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near- continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work like setting); or the inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. A 100 percent rating requires total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; or memory loss for the names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. When evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the Veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (a). The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. Id. The rating agency shall also consider the extent of social impairment, but not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (b). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has emphasized that the list of symptoms under a given rating is a non-exhaustive list, as indicated by the words "such as" that precede each list of symptoms. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 115 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In Vazquez-Claudio, the Federal Circuit held that a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration. Id. at 118. Other language in the decision indicates that the phrase "others of similar severity, frequency, and duration," can be thought of as symptoms of like kind to those listed in the regulation for a given disability rating. Id. at 116. A. Rating in excess of 30 percent prior to December 30, 2011. For the period prior to December 30, 2011, the Board finds that the symptoms of the Veteran's dysthymic disorder most nearly approximated the 30 percent evaluation. The specific symptoms associated with the Veteran's dysthymic disorder are considered by the 30 percent criteria. Significantly, the medical evidence of record, including the May 2004 VA examination, reflects that the Veteran complained of depressed mood, anxiety, irritability, and sadness; he also reported problems with decreased energy and social isolation. The reported diagnosis was dysthymic disorder, and the examiner described the severity of the Veteran’s symptoms as moderate. There is no indication of symptoms associated with a 50 percent evaluation during this period, to include panic attacks, impaired judgment, and impaired thinking. Nor does the evidence show symptoms of like kind to those listed for higher ratings. During the period prior to December 30, 2011, the Veteran's symptoms were characterized as moderate by his health care providers. In addition, the Veteran's occupational and social functioning also does not support the assignment of a rating in excess of 30 percent prior to December 30, 2011. During the May 2004 VA examination, it was noted that the Veteran was presently employed on a full-time basis, had been employed for 33 years, and maintained significant relationships with his wife of 35 years and 3 adult children. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence is against granting a disability rating higher than 30 percent for the Veteran's dysthymic disorder prior to December 30, 2011. The evidence does not show that the Veteran's symptoms prior to that date were of the type and degree contemplated by the criteria for a 50 percent disability rating. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran had panic attacks, an impairment in memory, judgment, or thinking, or difficulty in understanding complex commands. Moreover, while the Veteran has indicated that he has had transient thoughts of suicide, the record does not show social or occupational impairment resulting from his thoughts of death. The extent of impairment was not shown to be that required for a 50 percent or higher rating. For these reasons, the Board finds that preponderance of the evidence is against assigning a rating higher than 30 percent for the period prior to December 30, 2011 and the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019). B. Rating in excess of 70 percent from December 30, 2011. The Veteran contends that his dysthymic disorder meets the criteria for a rating higher than presently assigned. The Veteran's service-connected dysthymic disorder is presently assigned a 70 percent rating from December 30, 2011. The Veteran underwent a DBQ examination in June 2013. At that time, it was noted that the Veteran was currently married to his first wife of 43 years. The Veteran indicated that he has had a hard time concentrating. He has been retired since 2010; he noted that they rarely go anywhere unless he is certain that it will not be loud. The Veteran related that his daughter does not speak to him, but he occasionally speaks to one of his sons once a week. It was noted that, since his last appointment in 2012, the Veteran had a few follow ups. He denied any suicidal or homicidal thoughts, intentions, plans or intent. The examiner noted that the Veteran's psychiatric disorder is manifested by depressed mood, anxiety, and disturbances of motivation and mood. The examiner noted that the Veteran's mental disorder resulted in occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by medication. On the occasion of a DBQ examination in July 2017, the Veteran indicated that he experiences depression more than 20 days each month, with only 5 to 10 good days per month. It was noted that the Veteran retired in 2011 after 41 years as purchasing agent for Engineer Fluid in Centralia, IL. The Veteran reported that he and his wife stay home a lot, unable to go to different places. The examiner noted that the Veteran's psychiatric disorder is manifested by depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks more than once a week, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect, and disturbances of motivation and mood. The examiner noted that the Veteran was neat and clean; he was clean shaven with short hair. He was described as appropriately dressed. He spoke candidly and firmly. No thought disorders were noted. He was fully oriented. The examiner noted that the Veteran's mental disorder resulted in occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by medication. During a more recent DBQ examination in December 2020, the Veteran stated that his hearing issues has played a huge role in his mental health issues. He indicated that he has changed churches 15 times, due to noise issues. The Veteran indicated that his hearing issues has also greatly impacted him in the areas of work and home, not being able to tolerate loud noises. It was noted that the Veteran remained married to his wife of 51 years and they have two grown children. It was further noted that they enjoy good relationships with all of their children. It was noted that their marriage has been impacted by the Veteran’s inability to handle loud noises. It was noted that the Veteran has not been engaged in mental health services, either through the VA, or outside of the VA, since his last examination in July 2017. He was not taking any mental health-related medications, reporting that he has tried them all, and they did not work for him. He denied any mental health-related hospitalizations or suicide attempts. The examiner noted that the Veteran's psychiatric disorder is manifested by depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks more than once a week, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting, and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. The examiner noted that the Veteran was well groomed and appropriately dressed. He was engaged, polite and cooperative. Mood was depressed. Affect was flat. Speech was normal in rate, rhythm, and volume. He was alert and oriented X4. Attention and concentration were intact. Memory was fair. Motor behavior was unremarkable. Eye contact was sporadic. No hallucinations or delusions were noted. Current suicidal ideation, intent, thoughts, or plans were all denied. The examiner noted that the Veteran's mental disorder resulted in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and/or mood. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence is against granting a disability rating higher than 70 percent for the Veteran's PTSD since December 30, 2011. The evidence of record does not indicate a persistent danger of hurting self or others, grossly inappropriate behavior, an inability to perform activities of daily living, or other symptoms since that date that are of the type and degree contemplated by the criteria for a 100 percent disability rating. It does not show total social and occupational impairment. The Board finds that for the entire appeal period, the evidence does not show that the Veteran's symptoms have been of the type and degree contemplated by the criteria for a 100 percent disability rating. The evidence does not show that the Veteran has had gross impairment in thought processes or communication, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent delusions or hallucinations, or memory loss such as contemplated under the 100 percent rating criteria. There have been no symptoms of like kind to those listed for the 100 percent rating. The record does not indicate that the Veteran has ever had total occupational and social impairment. In assessing the severity of the disability under consideration, the Board has considered Veteran's assertions as to the type and frequency and/or severity of his symptoms, which he is certainly competent to provide. See, e.g., Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). However, the criteria needed to support a higher rating also require medical findings that are within the province of trained medical professionals. See Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 134, 137-38 (1994). As such, the lay assertions are not considered more persuasive than the medical findings which, as indicated above, do not support assignment of a rating in excess of 30 percent prior to December 30, 2011, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter for his service-connected dysthymic disorder. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for a rating in excess of 30 percent prior to December 30, 2011, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). 3. Entitlement to a TDIU prior to December 30, 2011 Awards of TDIU are governed, in part, by 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a) (2018). Under that regulation, total disability ratings for compensation can be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities: provided that, if there is only one such disability, the disability must 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 disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. See also 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341 (2019). Neither nonservice-connected disabilities nor advancing age may be considered in the determination. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). Thus, the Board may not consider the effects of the Veteran's nonservice-connected disabilities on his ability to function. Prior to December 30, 2011, the Veteran was service connected for dysthymic disorder rated as 30 percent disabling; tinnitus, rated as 10 percent disabling; and right ear hearing loss and cochlear hyperacusis, both rated as 0 percent disabling. The Veteran's combined rating is 40 percent from January 6, 2004. Therefore, the Veteran does not meet the schedular requirements for TDIU prior to December 30, 2011. A total rating based on individual unemployability may still be assigned to a veteran who fails to meet these percentage standards if he or she is unemployable by reason of his or her service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b). In this case, the evidence does not show that the Veteran is precluded from employment by disabilities caused by his dysthymic disorder, tinnitus, right ear hearing loss and cochlear hyperacusis prior to December 30, 2011. Significantly, during the May 2004 VA examination, it was noted that the Veteran was presently employed on a full-time basis, and he had been employed for 33 years. The examiner stated that “the main area in which the Veteran's depression has impacted on him is in terms of causing him to be less rewarding as a marital partner because his mood is also so glum and he does not feel like doing many things when he is depressed and he feels less capable of handling his hearing problems and is withdrawn from other people and is less sociable and I am sure quite irritable at times which impacts on his close interpersonal relationships and again on his broader interpersonal relationships, so he really has few friends and I am sure is not the most enjoyable person to be around as a family member when he is depressed. In other ways, he appears to have at least maintained his marriage, maintained his relationship with his children, maintained a very regular stable work history, an involvement with his religion, arid so forth.” (Continued on the next page) In light of the foregoing, the Board finds there is no persuasive evidence that the Veteran was precluded from engaging in gainful employment solely due to his service-connected disabilities prior to December 30, 2011. The preponderance of evidence tends to show that his service-connected disabilities were not of such severity to render him unable to secure and follow substantial gainfully employment. Accordingly, an effective date prior to December 30, 2011, for the award of TDIU is not warranted. Therefore, the weight of the probative evidence is against the assertion the Veteran's service-connected disabilities prevented him from working prior to December 30, 2011. The benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply and entitlement to TDIU prior to December 30, 2011 is denied. SONJA S. AN Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Suzie S. Gaston 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.