Citation Nr: 21025506 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 17-25 750 DATE: April 28, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating greater than 10 percent before February 26, 2021, for a right ankle disability is denied. Entitlement to a disability rating of 20 percent, but no greater, from February 26, 2021, for a right ankle disability is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Before February 26, 2021, the Veteran’s right ankle disability manifested in moderate limitation of motion; marked limitation of motion is not shown before that date. 2. On and after February 26, 2021, the Veteran’s right ankle disability manifested in symptomatology that more nearly approximated marked limitation of motion. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating greater than 10 percent before February 26, 2021, for a right ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5299-5271. 2. The criteria for an increased rating of 20 percent for a right ankle disability on and after February 26, 202, have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5299-5271. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 1996 to August 1998. The matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In April 2014, the AOJ issued a rating decision that increased the disability rating assigned to the Veteran’s service-connected residuals of right ankle sprain. The disability rating under Diagnostic Code (DC) 5299-5271 was increased from zero to 10 percent. The Veteran timely disagreed in an October 2014 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) and perfected his appeal in a May 2017 VA Form 9. In August 2019, a Board hearing was conducted. The hearing transcript has been associated with the Veteran’s file. The Veteran’s claim has been remanded several times since his hearing, most recently in February 2021. The Board issued a remand for a new disability examination. In February 2021, a new disability examination was conducted. Then in March, the AOJ readjudicated the Veteran’s claim. His claim for a greater than 10 percent disability rating was denied. In April 2021, the Veteran’s case was returned to the Board 1. Entitlement to disability rating greater than 10 percent before February 26, 2021, and a 20 percent rating from February 26, 2021, for a right ankle disability. The Veteran contends that the current severity of his right ankle disability warrants a greater than 10 percent disability rating. See May 2017 VA Form 9. After a review of the record, the Board concludes that evidence supports the assignment of a 20 percent disability rating on and after February 26, 2021. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities found in 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R., Part 4. If there is a question as to which evaluation to apply to the Veteran’s disability, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In considering the severity of a disability, it is essential to trace the medical history of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of any disability present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). Although the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over current findings, the Board is to consider the veteran’s medical history in determining the applicability of a higher rating for the entire period in which the appeal has been pending. Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 34 (1999). If later evidence indicates that the degree of disability increased or decreased following the assignment of the initial rating, “staged” ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007). When assessing the severity of a musculoskeletal disability that is rated on the basis of limitation of motion, VA must, in addition to applying scheduler criteria, also consider evidence of pain, weakened movement, excess fatigability, or incoordination. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59; DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 204-207 (1995). Although pain may cause a functional loss, pain itself does not constitute functional loss. Pain must affect some aspect of “the normal working movements of the body” such as “excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance,” in order to constitute functional loss. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 36- 39 (2011). The Veteran’s service-connected right ankle sprain is rated under DC 5299-5271. Hyphenated diagnostic codes are used when a rating under one DC (5299) requires the use of an additional DC to identify the basis for the evaluation assigned. The additional code is shown after the hyphen. The hyphenated codes for the Veteran’s right ankle sprain reflect that limited motion of the ankle is the basis for the rating assigned under DC 5271. There are two versions of DC 5271 that has been in effect since the filing of the Veteran’s increased rating claim. One that was in effect before February 7, 2021, and one that became effective on and after that date. Under the version of DC 5271 that was in effect before February 7, 2021, a 10 percent rating is warranted for “moderate” limited motion of the ankle. A 20 percent rating is warranted for “marked” limited motion of the ankle. A 20 percent rating is the highest rating available under that Code. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5271. Words such as “mild”, “slight”, “moderate”, “marked”, and “severe” are not defined in the VA Rating Schedule. Rather than applying a mechanical formula, the Board must evaluate all of the evidence to the end that its decisions are “equitable and just.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.6. According to MERRIAM WEBSTER, “moderate” means “tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension”. See www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/moderate. “Marked” means “having a distinctive or emphasized character”. See www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marked. Under the version of DC 5271 that became effective on and after February 7, 2021, marked and moderate limitation of motion are defined. Marked limitation of ankle motion is defined as less than 5 degrees dorsiflexion (flexion of the foot in an upward direction) or less than 10 degrees plantar flexion (movement of the foot in which the foot or toes flex downward toward the sole). Moderate limitation of motion is less than 15 degrees dorsiflexion or less than 30 degrees plantar flexion. See Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Musculoskeletal System and Muscle Injuries, 85 Fed. Reg. 76453, 76464 (Nov. 30, 2020) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5271). Although the VA regulations for DC 5271 have been changed during the appeal period, the Board can apply whichever set of criteria is more favorable to periods after February 7, 2021, if the claim was pending prior to that date. Kuzma v. Principi, 341 F.3d 1327, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Any reasonable doubt regarding a degree of disability is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Reasonable doubt exists when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence for and against the claim. 38 C.F.R.§ 3.102. In June 2013, the VA received the Veteran’s increased rating claim. The Veteran included lay assertions in that claim. He asserted he observed pain, stiffness, and instability at his right ankle. See June 2013 Statement in Support of Claim. In October 2013, the VA received a statement from the Veteran’s spouse wherein she reported that the Veteran’s right ankle disability led to chronic ankle sprains. She reported at least four of those sprains immobilized the Veteran. She added that he had many other less severe sprains that were managed with ice and rest. Also, she observed him wearing an ankle brace many times. See October 2013 Statement from Spouse. In January 2014, the Veteran underwent a VA disability examination to evaluate the severity of his service-connected right ankle disability. He reported he observed limited motion at the ankle. But it also popped on occasion. When it did, he observed greater range of motion. See January 2014 VA DBQ at 1-2. He added that he had an MRI that showed a torn right ankle ligament. He reported his right ankle had felt unstable, to the extent that he will twist his ankle if he steps on a pebble. He also reported he has twisted his ankle very severely at least two times every year. He described a recent occurrence of a twisted ankle that resulted in pain that was so severe he had to go to the emergency room. Id. He also reported flare-ups of severe pain that occurred about twice a year and lasted for weeks. When they occurred, he could not stand or walk for longer than short periods of time. Id. at 2. Initial range of motion testing on the right ankle showed some limited motion. Range of motion testing of plantar flexion (movement of the foot in which the foot or toes flex downward toward the sole) showed movement from 0 to 45 degrees, with no objective evidence of pain. Testing of dorsiflexion (flexion of the foot in an upward direction) showed movement from 0 to 15 degrees, with objective evidence of pain beginning at 15 degrees. Id. at 2. Repetitive use testing did not reveal any additional loss of motion due to pain, fatigue, weakness, lack of endurance, or incoordination. Although the examiner was notified that flare-ups were observed, the examiner did not describe the functional loss in terms of range of motion limitations. The examiner stated he could not estimate the functional effects of the Veteran’s flares because the Veteran could not replicate a flare-up during the examination. The examiner tested the Veteran’s right ankle stability and found laxity there. Id. at 3, 4. The examiner also noted there is no ankylosis. Id. Testing of the Veteran’s left ankle showed normal range of motion. After evaluating the Veteran’s right ankle, the examiner estimated the functional impact it had on the Veteran’s ability to work. The examiner concluded the Veteran’s right ankle disability did not impact his ability to lift objects. But it limited his ability to walk more than two hours at one time and six to eight hours over the course of an eight hour day. Also, he was limited to six to eight hours of standing over the course of an eight hour day. Id. at 8. In December 2014, the VA received another statement from the Veteran wherein he reported he observed pain at his right ankle since he filed his claim for service-connection. He added that, over an unspecified period of time, he observed limited range of motion at the right ankle and constant instability. He indicated his ankle instability led to several ankle sprains as well as a change in the way he walks. He asserted that change has led to other leg problems. See December 2014, Statement in support of Claim. In March 2017, Veteran underwent another VA disability examination that considered the statements the VA received from the Veteran and his spouse. Initial range of motion testing on the Veteran’s right ankle showed some limited motion. Range of motion testing of plantar flexion showed ankle motion from 0 to 35 degrees; for dorsiflexion, it was 0 to 20 degrees. Pain was noted on examination. See March 2017 VA DBQ at 2, 3. Repetitive use testing did not reveal any additional loss of motion due to pain, fatigue, weakness, lack of endurance, or incoordination. The examiner did not determine whether there was additional range of motion limitations with repeated use over time. Id. at 4, 5. Although the examiner did not examine the Veteran during flare-ups, he provided an opinion on functional loss during a flare-up based on the Veteran’s description: the examiner opined that pain resulted in functional loss. He also described the functional loss in terms of range of motion limitations. Plantar flexion was 0 to 35 degrees; dorsiflexion was 0 to 20 degrees. The examiner noted there is no evidence of pain on passive range of motion or weightbearing testing. Id. at 5, 8, 10. The examiner tested the Veteran’s right ankle stability and found instability was suspected. The examiner also noted there is no ankylosis. Id. at 7. Testing of the Veteran’s left ankle showed normal range of motion. After evaluating the Veteran’s right ankle, the examiner estimated the functional impact it has on the Veteran’s ability to work. The examiner concluded it limited the Veteran’s ability to perform higher impact activities such as jumping, climbing, or navigating uneven terrain. Id. at 10. In August 2019, a Board hearing was conducted for the Veteran’s entitlement claim. The Veteran testified he observed pain when he bends his right ankle and walks on it. He also testified he normally does not see a doctor for complaints about his ankle unless he observes severe sprain. See Transcript at 5, 9. He also testified that he observed greater instability at his right ankle since his last disability examination. He asserted the instability now appears to be chronic. He asserted that if he steps on items, like small as pebbles, his ankle will turn. Id. at 5, 6. He added that his right ankle disability has interfered with his work in law enforcement. He reported that, at least some of the times he sprained his ankle, he has had to take time off of work; he stated it was a day or two. Also, there has been at time that he was placed on light duty. Id. at 7. The Board notes that, in October 2019, the Veteran underwent VA disability examinations for lower leg and muscle injuries. The evaluations were conducted to investigate the extent of the functional effect of his right ankle instability. A VA examiner concluded the injury that led to the Veteran’s service-connected right ankle disability disrupted many of the ligaments in or around the ankle and, later, led to a calf muscle strain. See October 2019 VA Medical Opinion at 1, 2. The following month, in November, the Veteran was granted service-connection for right calf muscle strain that is secondary to his right ankle disability. See November 2019 SOC at 2. In February 2021, Veteran underwent another VA disability examination that considered the Veteran’s testimony and reports during his personal examination. The Veteran described his flare-ups again. He described them as sharp, throbbing pain, that occurs twice a year and lasts for two days. He described the severity of the pain as a 12 out of 10 (with 10 being the most severe). See VA DBQ at 4. Range of motion testing of the Veteran’s right ankle showed limited motion that was more severe than indicated during previous disability examinations. Testing of his plantar flexion showed limited motion from 0 to 10 degrees; for dorsiflexion, it was 0 to 35 degrees. Pain was noted on examination for dorsiflexion and plantar flexion. Id. at 5. Repetitive use testing did not reveal any additional loss of motion due to pain, fatigue, weakness, lack of endurance, or incoordination. Id. at 7. Although the examiner did not examine the Veteran after repeated use over time, he provided an opinion based on the Veteran’s description of functional loss: the examiner opined that pain resulted in functional loss. The examiner described the functional loss in terms of range of motion limitations: dorsiflexion was 0 to 5 degrees; plantar flexion was 0 to 30 degrees. Id. at 8. Similarly, the examiner provided an opinion on functional loss during a flare-up that was based on the Veteran’s description: the examiner opined that pain resulted in functional loss. He also described the functional loss in terms of range of motion limitations: dorsiflexion was 0 to 5 degrees; plantar flexion was 0 to 25 degrees. The examiner noted there was evidence of pain on passive range of motion but no pain on non-weightbearing testing. Id. at 9, 18. The examiner tested the Veteran’s right ankle stability. The examiner noted testing showed laxity at the right ankle and instability was suspected. The examiner also noted there is no ankylosis. Id. at 13, 14. Testing of the Veteran’s left ankle showed normal range of motion. After evaluating the Veteran’s right ankle, the examiner estimated the functional impact it had on the Veteran’s ability to work as a law enforcement officer. The examiner concluded it limited the Veteran’s ability to walk on uneven terrain. Also, the Veteran has lost less than a week’s worth of work time in the last 12 months. Id. at 17. The examiner also opined that the Veteran’s right ankle disability does not prevent him from working. She concluded that the Veteran could perform medium work. See February 2021 Individual Unemployability Statement. A. Whether the VA regulations in effect before February 7, 2021, will be used to evaluate the Veteran’s increased rating claim after that date. Turning to the Veteran’s claim for disability compensation, because this claim involves a change in the way VA regulations evaluate the Veteran’s service-connected right ankle disability, the first question is whether the regulations in effect before the change will be used to evaluate his right ankle disability for the period of time after the change. o answer that question, the Board must determine whether the regulations in effect before February 7, 2021, or after that date, are more favorable to the Veteran’s claim. Kuzma, 341 F.3d at 1328. Here, both sets of regulations evaluate limited motion of the ankle. The main difference between the two is the old regulations (in effect before February 7, 2021) did not base the assignment of a 10 or 20 percent disability rating on specific degrees of range of motion limits. That means, under the current regulations, his claim would be evaluated solely on whether he met specific range of motion limitations for the next higher rating. If the Board applied the criteria in the new regulations, a disability rating greater than 10 percent rating would not be warranted. Because the VA regulations in effect before February 7, 2021, do not require that the Veteran meet specific range of motion limitations before becoming eligible for the next higher rating, those regulations afford the Veteran the benefit of having his claim evaluated under less specific criteria. That means his claim would not be evaluated solely on whether he met range of motion limitations for the next higher rating. More importantly, under the old regulations, the assignment of an increased rating is warranted. In this case, the Board finds the VA regulations in effect before February 7, 2021, are more favorable to the Veteran’s claim. The current regulations provide specific criteria which would lead to the denial of an assignment of a higher rating. But that is not the case if the Board applies the regulations that were in effect before that date. Because the VA regulations in effect before February 7, 2021, are more favorable to the Veteran’s claim, the criteria in those regulations will be used to evaluate his increased rating claim throughout the entire appeal period. Kuzma, 341 F.3d at 1328. B. Entitlement to a greater than 10 percent disability for the appeal period before August 2019. Because the Veteran has reported his right ankle disability got worse than it was when he filed his increased rating claim, the next question is whether an increased rating is warranted for any period of time before he reported it worsened. To answer that question, the first issue is determining the approximate date the record raised the inference the Veteran’s right ankle disability had worsened. The record reflects the first time he reported right ankle disability worsened was during his August 2019 his Board hearing. See Transcript at 7. The medical evidence of record before his hearing does not discuss the Veteran’s right ankle disability in sufficient detail to indicate any increase in its severity. So, the Board finds the first time the VA became aware of worsening symptoms was during his August 2019 Board hearing. The next issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to find a greater than 10 percent disability rating is warranted before the Veteran’s August 2019 Board hearing. The evidence in the record before the Board hearing includes lay statements. Those lay statements report pain, stiffness, instability, and several twisted ankles. The Veteran has personal knowledge of symptoms like pain, stiffness, and instability at his ankle. So, he is competent to report it. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Here, he has consistently reported symptomatology that his ankle has less movement than normal but is also so unstable that he tends to twist his ankle. Considering his statements are supported by the observations of his spouse, the Board finds his statements credible. See June 2013 Statement in Support of Claim; October 2013 Statement from Spouse; December 2014, Statement in support of Claim. Even though the Board finds the Veteran’s lay statements credible, he has not reported symptomatology that helps determine whether he satisfied the criteria for a greater than 10 percent disability rating before August 2019. Here, most of his statements report pain, instability, and stiffness. Although the Board acknowledges those symptoms are disruptive to his daily functioning, his right ankle disability is rated by limited motion that is either moderate (at 10 percent rating) or marked (at 20 percent rating). Although a claimant’s descriptions of symptoms may be helpful in determining the extent of limited motion, his statements during the relevant period do not. The Veteran’s reports of pain suggest it impairs his movement, but does not inform the Board of the range of impairment. For example, whether he cannot move it at all. His reports of instability suggest laxity instead of rigidity. Laxity is slackness or looseness. DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY (DORLANDS) 999 (33rd ed. 2020). His reports of stiffness are helpful. But a report of stiffness, without more, does not help the Board approximate the severity of the stiffness. So, his statements were assigned some, but not significant, weight. The findings in the March 2017 disability examination provided range of motion findings that were helpful in evaluating the Veteran’s right ankle disability and they weighed in favor of finding moderate limited motion (a 10 percent disability rating). In addition to a review of the file, the examiner acknowledged and considered the Veteran’s reports of pain and limited use of his right ankle. See VA DBQ at 2, 3. So, the Board finds the examiner was informed of the relevant details of the Veteran’s past medical history. Nievez-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 300 (2006). Then, the examiner quantified those effects in terms of additional range of motion limitations. Sharp, 29 Vet. App. at 34-35. The examiner also noted the functional loss due to pain. And he quantified those effects in terms of range of motion limitations. Mitchell, 25 Vet. App. at 37-38. Since the examiner considered the Veteran’s lay statements and addressed any functional loss due to pain—the Board finds the March 2017 VA DBQ provides a clear picture of the extent to which pain is disabling—and assigned it significant probative weight. Id. at 44. The range of motion findings during that disability examination more nearly approximate marked limited motion. The examiner’s estimate of limited motion at its worst, during a flare-up, was 0 to 20 degrees, for dorsiflexion; for plantar flexion, 0 to 35 degrees. See March 2017 VA DBQ at 2, 3. Normal range of motion for dorsiflexion is 0 to 20 degrees; for plantar flexion, 0 to 45 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate II. Since the examiner’s findings show ankle motion that is close to the normal, the March 2017 VA DBQ was assigned great weight against finding marked limited motion. The Board notes the range of motion limits in the March 2017 VA DBQ are similar to the ones found in the January 2014 VA DBQ. During that examination, the examiner noted the range of motion limits after repetitive use testing was 0 to 15 degrees for dorsiflexion; for plantar flexion, 0 to 45 degrees. See VA DBQ at 2, 3. Although that examiner did not provide estimates during a flare-up, the limits found in the January 2014 VA DBQ do not show limits more severe than the ones found in the March 2017 VA DBQ. So, the January 2014 VA DBQ supports finding the Veteran’s right ankle disability had not manifested marked limited motion at that time either. In this case, the evidence is not approximately balanced in favor of an increased disability rating before August 2019. The probative March 2017 VA DBQ describes limited movement at the ankle that more nearly approximates moderate limited motion, which is the 10 percent rating currently assigned. Considering the findings in the January 2014 VA DBQ also show range of motion limitations closer to moderate limited motion, the evidence does not support finding a greater than 10 percent rating is warranted from a year before the filing of the Veteran’s increased rating claim (June 2012) through August 2019. So, doubt could not be resolved in the Veteran’s favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Accordingly, the Board finds that a greater than 10 percent disability rating for his service-connected right ankle disability is not warranted at any time before August 2019. Hart, 21 Vet. App. at 509-10.   C. Entitlement to a greater than 10 percent disability rating from August 2019 to February 26, 2021. Although the Veteran reported worsening symptoms during his August 2019 Board hearing, they were not descriptive enough to evaluate whether the increase in severity more closely approximated moderate or marked limited motion. During the hearing he reiterated he observed pain, instability, and he tended to twist his ankle easily. But the symptom that he emphasized had worsened was instability. See Transcript at 5, 6, 7. The Veteran’s reports of pain during his August 2019 Board hearing were too general to evaluate the range of limited motion. Also, the instability observed at his ankle turned out to be a manifestation of laxity (looseness) as opposed to rigidity (limited movement). See February 2021 VA DBQ at 14. So, his statements were not sufficient to find marked limited motion. The medical evidence for the relevant period was also of little help in evaluating the severity of the Veteran’s right ankle disability. A search of the record for the relevant period did not reveal data that was sufficient to evaluate the severity of his disability during that period of time. Also, because a new VA disability exam was not conducted during the relevant period, there were no range of motion estimates for the Board to consider. In this case, the evidence is not approximately balanced in favor of an increased disability rating between August 2019 and February 26, 2021. Although the Veteran reported his disability had worsened, the lay and medical evidence of record is not sufficiently detailed for the Board to evaluate whether the next higher rating is warranted. So, doubt could not be resolved in the Veteran’s favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Also, consideration of staged ratings for that period of time is not warranted. Hart, 21 Vet. App. at 509-10.   D. Entitlement to a greater than 10 percent disability rating on and after February 26, 2021. The February 26, 2021 VA DBQ and lay evidence of record provide sufficient evidence to find that Veteran’s right ankle disability manifested marked limited motion on and after that date. Although the Veteran did not provide additional lay evidence, the Board has found his reports of pain, stiffness, and instability, credible. The February 2021 VA DBQ provides medical evidence that supports finding his right ankle pain and stiffness cause functional impairment that more closely approximates marked limited motion. In addition to a review of the file, the examiner acknowledged and considered the Veteran’s reports of pain and limited use of his right ankle. See VA DBQ at 4. So, the Board finds the examiner was informed of the relevant details of the Veteran’s past medical history. Nievez-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 301. Then, the examiner quantified those effects in terms of additional range of motion limitations. Sharp, 29 Vet. App. at 34-35. The examiner also noted the functional loss due to pain. And he quantified those effects in terms of range of motion limitations. Mitchell, 25 Vet. App. at 37-38. Since the examiner considered the Veteran’s lay statements and addressed any functional loss due to pain—the Board finds the February 2021 VA DBQ provides a clear picture of the extent to which pain is disabling—and assigned it significant probative weight. Id. at 44. Unlike the range of motion limits found in earlier VA DBQs, this examiner’s estimates of limited motion during a flare-up was far below normal. Normal range of motion for dorsiflexion is 0 to 20 degrees; plantar flexion, 0 to 45 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate II. Here, the examiner estimated that the Veteran’s right ankle disability, at its worst (during a flare-up), is 0 to 5 degrees, for dorsiflexion; for plantar flexion, 0 to 25 degrees. See February 2021 VA DBQ at 9. Since the Veteran’s dorsiflexion during a flare-up is far below normal, the VA DBQ shows range of motion limits that more closely approximate marked limited motion. In this case, the evidence is approximately balanced in favor of an increased disability rating on and after February 26, 2021. Although the lay evidence of record has been found to be insufficient to estimate the severity of the Veteran’s right ankle disability, the February 2021 VA DBQ provides additional information that helps decide the claim. The findings in the February 2021 VA DBQ show the Veteran’s right ankle disability causes limited motion that more closely approximates marked limited motion. Because marked limited motion is a 20 percent disability rating, the Board concludes the criteria for a 20 percent rating are met from February 26, 2021. A 20 percent rating is the highest rating available under DC 5271. E. Entitlement to a greater than 10 percent disability rating under other applicable diagnostic codes. Since the Board must consider all other potentially applicable DCs, the next question is whether an analogous rating is warranted. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 592-93 (1991). The Board finds that the evidence does not support concluding there are other applicable DCs. The Veteran has already been assigned a 10 percent disability rating in recognition of painful motion. So, a compensable rating based on functional loss due to painful motion has already been granted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. The VA disability examinations did not provide a diagnosis of arthritis or find ankylosis. See January 2014 VA DBQ at 4, 7; March 2017 VA DBQ at 7, 9; February 2021 VA DBQ at 2, 4. Ankylosis is defined as “immobility and consolidation of a joint due to disease, injury, surgical procedure.” DORLAND’S at 92. So, consideration of a DC based on arthritis or ankylosis of the right ankle is not warranted. Nor did the examinations find additional conditions, to include os calcis, astraglectomy. See January 2014 VA DBQ at 4, 7; March 2017 VA DBQ at 8; February 2021 VA DBQ at 5. So, consideration of DCs based on those conditions is not warranted. The Board notes that the Veteran’s reports of instability have been evaluated by the VA and led to disability compensation through the grant of service connection for a different lower leg disability. In sum, the evidence of record does not show that the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected right ankle disability rated under DC 5271 warrants a greater than 10 percent rating before February 26, 2021. But the evidence does show a 20 percent rating is warranted on and after February 26, 2021. Hart, 21 Vet. App. at 505. The Board notes that this case does not raise a claim for a Total Disability Rating Based Upon Individual Unemployability (TDIU). Although the Veteran reported his right ankle disability has led to loss of work time, he has not reported it rendered him unable to work. See Transcript dated August 2019 at 7. Also, the impact his disability has on his ability to work has been evaluated by several medical professionals. Although the examiners found it places limits on his ability to stand and walk, they did not conclude it rendered the Veteran unable to work. See January 2014 VA DBQ at 8; February 2021 February 2021 Individual Unemployability Statement. Thus, there is no indication that he is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a); Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 454 (2009). DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Dean, Michael S. 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.