Citation Nr: 21024268 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-67 428 DATE: April 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for lumbosacral strain from October 10, 2011 to August 4, 2015 is denied. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for lumbosacral strain from August 5, 2015 to July 6, 2017 is denied. Entitlement to a 40 percent disability rating for lumbosacral strain is granted beginning July 7, 2017. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for lumbosacral strain beginning July 7, 2017 is denied. Entitlement to a 20 percent disability rating for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve is granted beginning March 25, 2015. Entitlement to a 20 percent disability rating for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the femoral nerve is granted beginning March 25, 2015. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Veteran is not entitled to a rating in excess of 10 percent for lumbosacral strain from October 10, 2011 to August 4, 2015. 2. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Veteran is not entitled to a rating in excess of 20 percent for lumbosacral strain from August 5, 2015 to July 6, 2017. 3. On July 7, 2017, it was ascertainable that the Veteran’s back disability had increased in severity. 4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Veteran is not entitled to a rating in excess of 40 percent for lumbosacral strain beginning July 7, 2017. 5. The Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve is manifest by moderate incomplete paralysis. 6. The Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy of the femoral nerve is manifest by moderate incomplete paralysis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for lumbosacral strain from October 10, 2011 to August 4, 2015 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5237. 2. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for lumbosacral strain from August 5, 2015 to July 6, 2017 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5237. 3. The criteria for a 40 percent disability rating for lumbosacral strain were met beginning July 7, 2017. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5237. 4. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for lumbosacral strain beginning July 7, 2017 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5237. 5. The criteria for a 20 percent disability rating for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve were met beginning March 25, 2015. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. 6. The criteria for a 20 percent disability rating for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the femoral nerve were met beginning March 25, 2020. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8526. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from May 2007 to October 2011. The Veteran and his spouse testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a February 2020 hearing. This matter is on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in April 2020 when it was remanded for further development. The April 2020 Board remand explained that the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination for his service-connected lumbosacral strain on August 4, 2017. In the August 2017 VA examination, the examiner found that the examination was neither medically consistent nor inconsistent with the Veteran’s statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time. The examiner also found that pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination would significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over a period time or with flare-ups, but that this could not be described in terms of range of motion (ROM). The examiner did not provide a rationale for the inability to quantify these limitations. As a result, the Board remanded for a new examination to address flare-ups adequately. Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). The matter was subsequently remanded for a new VA examination. The April 2020 Board remand directed that the clinician must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. The clinician was also directed to provide a description of the Veteran’s flare-ups, what the functional impairment would be, and what the Veteran’s range of motion (ROM) would be during a flare-up. If the clinician was unable to do so without resort to speculation, the clinician was required to provide a rationale for this conclusion. The clinician was advised that a statement that the examination did not take place during a flare-up or after repetitive use over time is not a sufficient rationale for inability to provide an opinion. The Veteran was afforded a new VA examination in July 2020. In October 2020, the Veteran’s representative argued that the July 2020 VA examination was inadequate because the VA examiner did not provide a rationale for the opinion. However, the representative’s argument fails because the clinician did not conclude that they were unable to provide an opinion without speculation, and therefore no rationale was needed. A rationale was only required if the examiner found that an opinion regarding functional impairment and ROM during flare-ups or repetitive use over time could not be provided without resorting to speculation. In the July 2020 VA examination, examiner found that pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over time and during flare ups, and was able to describe this in terms of ROM. Since the examiner was able to provide ROM measurements for flare ups and repetition over time, this is an adequate opinion pursuant to Sharp. The examiner also recorded the Veteran’s lay description of his flare ups, as discussed below. Therefore, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the April 2020 remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Increased Ratings Disability ratings are determined by applying a schedule of ratings that is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Separate Diagnostic Codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Each disability must be viewed in the relation to its history and the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition should be emphasized. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. “Staged” ratings are appropriate for an increased rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Where there is a question as to which of two disability evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation is to be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating is to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities based on the limitation of motion, 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 requires consideration of functional loss caused by pain or other factors listed in that section. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 requires consideration also be given to less movement than normal, more movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 2020 (1995). Although pain may cause a functional loss, “pain itself does not rise to the level of functional loss as contemplated by VA regulations applicable to the musculoskeletal system.” Thus, in evaluating the severity of a joint disability, VA must determine the overall functional impairment due to these factors. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 38-43 (2011). Nonetheless, even when the background factors listed in 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 or § 4.45 itself relevant when evaluating a disability, the rating is assigned based on the extent to which motion is limited, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a; a separate or higher rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 or § 4.45 itself is not appropriate. Thompson v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[I]t is clear that the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran’s disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria.”). The Veteran’s lumbosacral sprain is currently rated under Diagnostic Code 5237, which is evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (General Formula). 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. The General Formula specifies that the criteria and ratings apply with or without symptoms such as pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching in the area affected by residuals of injury or disease. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-5243. Under the General Formula, a 20 percent rating is warranted for: forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; a combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or muscle spasms or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. Id. A 40 percent rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine 30 degrees or less or favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. Id. A 50 percent rating is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. Id. A 100 percent rating is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. Id. Ankylosis is defined, for VA compensation purposes, as a condition in which all or part of the spine is fixed in flexion or extension. Id. at Note (5). For VA compensation purposes, normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is from zero to 90 degrees, extension is from zero to 30 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 30 degrees, and right and left lateral rotation are from zero to 30 degrees. Id. at Note (2). The combined range of motion refers to the sum of the range of forward flexion, extension, left and right lateral flexion, and left and right rotation. The normal combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine is 240 degrees. Id. 1. Entitlement to a disability rating for lumbosacral strain in excess of 10 percent from October 10, 2011 to August 4, 2015 The Veteran contends that his lumbosacral strain warrants a rating in excess of 10 percent from the period from October 10, 2011 to August 4, 2015. At the February 2020 hearing, the Veteran reported that his back pain has not changed since his initial claim in 2012. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2013 for his back condition. This examination noted that the Veteran had a well-documented diagnosis of and treatment for lumbosacral strain in his service treatment records (STR) without radicular component. At the July 2013 VA examination, the Veteran did not report having flare-ups. In July 2013, the Veteran’s initial ROM measurements were forward flexion to 85 degrees and there was evidence of painful motion at 85 degrees, his extension ended at 25 degrees, his right and left lateral flexion ended at 30 degrees or greater and that there was no evidence of painful motion, his right and left lateral rotation ended at 30 degrees or greater and there was no evidence of painful motion. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use-testing with three repetitions and did not have additional limitation in ROM following repetitive-use testing. His functional loss was less movement than normal and pain on movement. The Veteran had guarding and muscle spasm present, but it did not result in abnormal gait or contour. He did not have ankylosis. His strength and reflexes were normal. The examination report shows that the 10 percent criteria are met for his low back disability because his forward flexion was 85 degrees and his combined range of motion was 230 degrees. The Veteran’s VA treatment records from this time period show that he had chronic back pain. At an appointment from February 2014, the Veteran reported progressing back pain. However, this evidence does not show that the criteria for a higher rating are met. At his February 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that his back pain had remained the same since 2012. His description of his pain is competent and credible. However, the findings of the VA examiner show that his ROM fell within the 10 percent criteria. The 10 percent disability rating from October 10, 2011 to August 4, 2015 is appropriate. 2. Entitlement to a disability rating for lumbosacral strain in excess of 20 percent from August 5, 2015 to July 6, 2017 The Veteran was afforded another VA examination on August 5, 2015. At this VA examination, the Veteran reported more functional limitation. Specifically, he reported not being able to run, not being able to take long strides due to back tightness, and that sitting for long periods of time was painful. The Veteran stated that his pain is constant, localized to mid-lumbar region, radiating into the right hip and down the anterior right thigh to knee. He did not have radicular symptoms in his left leg. He also reported experiencing flare-ups, which he characterized as sudden increase in pain and feeling unstable. The Veteran reported functional impairment, including not being able to sit long, being unable to run or take long strides, being unable to lift things off of the floor or carry things, being unable to be active, and losing sleep from the pain. At this VA examination, his forward flexion was 50 degrees, his extension ended at 30 degrees, his right and left lateral flexion ended at 20 degrees, and his right and left lateral rotation ended at 20 degrees. Pain was noted on all types of ROM and caused functional loss. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing with at least three repetitions, and there was additional loss of function or ROM after three repetitions at forward flexion (ending at 40 degrees) and extension (ending at 20 degrees). The Veteran had muscle spasm and guarding resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spine contour. The Veteran did not have ankylosis. In a September 2015 rating decision, the Veteran’s 10 percent evaluation was increased to 20 percent. Initially, the Veteran was assigned an effective date of March 25, 2015 for this increase. The effective date was changed to August 5, 2015 (the date of the VA examination that showed a worsening of his disability) in a December 2017 rating decision. The AOJ noted that the assignment of the March 25, 2015 effective date was clearly and unmistakably erroneous because the earlier rating decision incorrectly assigned the 20 percent rating based off of a March 25, 2015 intent to file form. However, the May 20, 2015 VA Form 21-526b received after the intent to file did not include his back disability. Instead the back disability was under appeal by a May 18, 2015 NOD. The AOJ explained that the change in effective date did not impact his benefit payments. The Veteran was entitled to a 20 percent evaluation because forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine was greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; his combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine was greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees; he had guarding, localized tenderness, and muscle spasm not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; and he had painful motion upon examination. The Veteran’s VA treatment records continued to show back pain during this period. In November 2016, he reported increased pain to his physical therapist. He had increased pain with sitting, walking, and lifting. The physical therapist stated that the Veteran’s right lateral flexion and extension were each limited by 50 percent. This means that his right lateral flexion and extension were both 15 degrees, as normal lateral flexion is 30 degrees and normal extension is 30 degrees. The physical therapist’s range of motion measurements do not show that the criteria for a higher rating are met. At his February 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that his back pain had remained the same since 2012. His description of his pain is competent and credible. However, the findings of the August 2015 VA examiner show that his ROM fell within the 20 percent criteria. The 20 percent disability rating from August 5, 2015 to July 6, 2017 is appropriate. 3. Entitlement to disability ratings for lumbosacral strain in excess of 40 percent beginning July 7, 2017 The AOJ assigned the 40 percent disability rating effective August 4, 2017, which was the date of his VA examination. For initial rating claims and increased rating claims, “the effective date can be no earlier than the date it was factually ascertainable” that a veteran’s disability was diagnosed or worsened. Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 n. 4 (2015). The effective date should not be “assigned mechanically” as of the date of an examination. Id. at 224. On July 7, 2017, the AOJ contacted the Veteran to confirm that he was continuing his appeal. The Veteran stated that “he believe[d] his back disability had worsened since his last C&P exam[ination]….” As a result, the AOJ ordered the new examination on August 4, 2017. The Veteran’s July 7, 2017 statement shows that his disability had increased in severity. The July 7, 2017 report of contact is the first time it was ascertainable that the disability had worsened. Therefore the 40 percent rating is granted beginning July 7, 2017. At the August 2017 examination, the Veteran reported having dull, constant pain with stiffness and decreased ROM. The Veteran also reported having to take a break after 20 to 30 minutes of household activities, and that he has difficulty lifting and bending. He described flare ups as stabbing and burning pain that happened two to three times per week, lasting for 15 to 30 minutes. His forward flexion was 15 degrees, his extension was 10 degrees, his lateral flexion was 15 degrees bilaterally, his right lateral rotation was 10 degrees, and his left lateral rotation was 15 degrees. He had pain during all ROM exercises, but the examiner noted that it did not result in or cause a functional loss. He had pain on weight-bearing. There was no additional loss of ROM after repetitive use with at least three repetitions. There was evidence of pain on passive range of motion testing and when the joint was used in non-weight bearing. He had muscle spasm and guarding that did not result in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour. His strength and reflexes were normal and he did not have muscle atrophy. He also did not have ankylosis. The portion of the examination that addressed ROM during flare-ups is inadequate because it does not comply with the holding in Sharp. Therefore this portion will not be addressed further and will not be assigned any probative weight. The Veteran was afforded another VA examination in July 2020. He reported that his current symptoms include pain and stiffness radiating down his right leg, thigh and knee that feels like pins and needles and burning sensations that come and go. He reported having flare-ups which include severe stabbing and burning sensations in his back. The Veteran stated that the flare-ups occur once a week or more depending on his level of activity, and that the flare-ups can last anywhere from one to six hours at a time. The Veteran reported not being able to sit for a long period of time, not being able to run, and not being able to sleep because of the pain. In the July 2020 examination, the Veteran’s forward flexion was recorded as being from 10 to 30 degrees, his extension recorded as being from 10 to 20 degrees, his right lateral flexion recorded as being from 10 to 20 degrees, his left lateral flexion recorded as being from zero to 20 degrees, and his right and left lateral rotation recorded as being from zero to 20 degrees. The examiner stated that the Veteran displayed “suboptimal effort” and that the ROM were “invalid for rating purposes” because of this. The examiner noted pain on examination, and that the pain causes functional loss. The examiner also noted that there is objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation in the lower thoracic and upper-mid lumbar region. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive-use testing with at least three repetitions, and that there was additional loss of function or range of motion after three repetitions. After three repetitions, the Veteran’s ROM was recorded as being from 10 to 30 degrees for forward flexion, 10 to 15 degrees for extension, 10 to 15 degrees for right lateral flexion, five to 20 degrees for left lateral flexion, and five to 20 degrees for right and left lateral rotation. The July 2020 examination was not conducted immediately after repetitive use over time or during a flare up, and the examiner noted that the examination is neither medically consistent nor inconsistent with the Veteran’s statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time or during a flare up. The examiner further found that pain, fatigue, and lack of endurance significantly limits functional ability with repeated use over a period of time and during a flare-up, and was able to describe this in terms of ROM. He estimated that his ROM after repetitive use over time or during a flare up would consist of flexion from 10 to 30 degrees, extension from 10-15 degrees, right lateral flexion from 10 to 15 degrees, and left lateral flexion, right lateral rotation, and left lateral rotation would all be from 5 to 20 degrees. The examiner also noted that the Veteran has guarding and muscle spasm of the thoracolumbar spine that results in abnormal gait or abnormal spine contour. The examiner also noted that the Veteran does not have ankylosis. At this examination, passive ROM “…was not performed as it is not feasible to do this in a safe and reasonable manner.” At his hearing, the Veteran testified that his back is very stiff, that he had trouble picking up items that were on the floor, and had problems bending and playing with his children. He also stated that his pain level has not changed since 2012. The evidence of record beginning July 7, 2017 does not show that the Veteran has unfavorable ankylosis, which is defined by VA regulation. “Unfavorable ankylosis” is defined as “a condition in which the entire cervical spine, the entire thoracolumbar spine, or the entire spine is fixed in flexion or extension, and the ankylosis results in one or more of the following: difficulty walking because of a limited line of vision; restricted opening of the mouth and chewing; breathing limited to diaphragmatic respiration; gastrointestinal symptoms due to pressure of the costal margin on the abdomen; dyspnea or dysphagia; atlantoaxial or cervical subluxation or dislocation; or neurologic symptoms due to nerve root stretching.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, Note (5). The medical and lay evidence of record does not show that any of these conditions are present. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has unfavorable ankylosis of the spine. Therefore a rating higher than 40 percent is denied. 4. Neurological abnormalities The General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine states that any associated objective neurologic abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment are to be evaluated separately under an appropriate Diagnostic Code. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. The record does not show that the Veteran has bowel or bladder symptoms due to his back disability. Additionally, at his VA examinations, VA examiners found that he did not have radiculopathy symptoms in his left lower extremity. The Veteran has not described radicular symptoms in his left lower extremity. The Veteran has right lower extremity radiculopathy that has been assigned separate ratings under Diagnostic Codes 8520 (sciatic nerve) and 8526 (femoral nerve). Under Diagnostic Code 8520, paralysis of the sciatic nerve is rated as follows: complete paralysis (80 percent); severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy (60 percent); moderately severe incomplete paralysis (40 percent); moderate incomplete paralysis (20 percent); and mild incomplete paralysis (10 percent). Diagnostic Code 8526 pertains to paralysis of the femoral nerve. Under this Diagnostic Code, paralysis of the femoral nerve is rated as follows: complete paralysis (40 percent); severe incomplete paralysis (30 percent); moderate incomplete paralysis (20 percent); and mild incomplete paralysis (10 percent). 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 levels of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating is for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. The Note to 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a establishes a maximum disability rating for wholly sensory conditions, as opposed to a minimum disability rating for conditions that are more than wholly sensory. Miller v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 376 (2017). Nonsensory impairment can include symptoms such as “a reflex abnormality, [or] weakness or muscle atrophy.” Id. at 380. The Veteran describes having pain and stiffness radiating down his right leg, thigh, and knee that feels like pins and needles as well as a burning sensation. At the Veteran’s August 2015 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran had radicular pain and other symptoms due to radiculopathy. Specifically, at this time the Veteran had mild intermittent pain of the right lower extremity and moderate paresthesias and/or dysesthesias of the right lower extremity. The examiner reported that the Veteran had moderate right side radiculopathy. The examiner also noted that the Veteran’s right femoral nerve was impacted. In August 2015, the Veteran’s deep tendon reflexes were hyperactive without clonus (3+). The sensory examination was noted as normal for the entire right leg. The Veteran was unable to perform the straight leg raising test on either side. The Veteran had normal strength in his right side except for hip flexion, which was characterized by active movement against some resistance. The Veteran did not have muscle atrophy at this time. The Veteran was afforded another VA examination in August 2017. Here, the examiner reported that the Veteran had radicular pain and other symptoms due to radiculopathy. At this time, the Veteran had moderate constant pain in the right lower extremity and moderate paresthesias and dysesthesias of the right lower extremity. The examiner noted that the Veteran had moderate right side radiculopathy, and the Veteran’s right sciatic nerve was impacted. The Veteran also was noted to have seated SLR to 90 degrees without radicular symptoms, supine right SLR with complaint of radicular pain at 30 degrees. At this time, the Veteran’s deep tendon reflexes for his right knee was normal (2+), and for his right ankle was hyperactive without clonus (3+). For the Veteran’s right upper anterior thigh and right foot/toes, the results of the sensory examination were decreased. For the Veteran’s right thigh/knee and lower leg/ankle, the results of the sensory examination were normal. Strength testing done reflected that the Veteran had normal strength on his right side. He did not have muscle atrophy. At a November 2017 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran had moderate incomplete paralysis of the right sciatic nerve. Further, the examiner reported that the Veteran had moderate incomplete paralysis of the right femoral nerve. At this time, the Veteran’s deep tendon reflexes were normal (2+). For the Veteran’s right lower leg/ankle and right foot/toes, the results of the sensory exam were decreased. The results of the sensory exam were normal for the right upper anterior thigh and right thigh/knee. Strength testing reflected that the Veteran had normal strength on the right side. The Veteran did not have muscle atrophy. At the July 2020 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran has a diagnosis of right lower radiculopathy affecting the sciatic and femoral nerves. The examiner reported that the Veteran has severe intermittent pain on the right side and moderate paresthesias and dysesthesias of the right side. The examiner characterized the Veteran’s right side radiculopathy as being moderate, and that it affected the right sciatic nerve. The Veteran’s deep tendon reflexes for the right side were hyperactive without clonus (3+). The results of the sensory examination for the right side were normal. For the Veteran’s right hip flexion and knee extension, the strength training results demonstrated active movement against some resistance. For the Veteran’s right ankle plantar flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, and great toe extension, the strength training results were normal. The Veteran did not have muscle atrophy. Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that the Veteran’s radiculopathy of the right lower extremity for both the sciatic and femoral nerves have been defined as moderate incomplete paralysis during the appeal period. The Veteran’s radiculopathy symptoms were not wholly sensory for at least part of the appeal period because the Veteran exhibited decreased strength and hyperactive reflexes. Throughout the appeal period, he has experienced some decreased (but not absent) sensation and some weakness of his right lower extremity. Additionally, the Veteran experienced some moderate sensory symptoms. Further, examiners have described the overall severity of the right lower extremity radiculopathy as being moderate. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy of the sciatic and femoral nerves warrants a rating of 20 percent beginning March 25, 2015. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. DeVerter, 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.