Citation Nr: 21026344 Decision Date: 04/30/21 Archive Date: 04/30/21 DOCKET NO. 10-08 561 DATE: April 30, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the service-connected lumbosacral spine disability from February 16, 1994, to October 22, 2002, and in excess of 20 percent from October 22, 2002, to February 26, 2019 is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. From February 16, 1994 to October 22, 2002 the Veteran’s lumbosacral spine disability was manifest by no worse than characteristic pain on motion and from October 22, 2002 to February 26, 2019 his lumbosacral spine disability has been manifest by no worse than moderate limitation of motion. 2. The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone do not cause him to be unable to find or maintain gainful employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative joint disease of the lumbosacral spine have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5292, 5295 (as in effect prior to September 23, 2002). 2. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU have not been met. 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 February 1990 to October 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2003 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from February 1990 to October 1991. In April 2016, the Veteran testified at hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The transcript has been added to the claims file. These matters were previously before the Board in September 2016, at which time they were remanded for further evidentiary development. In accordance with the remand directives, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) contacted the Veteran in June 2018 to obtain any relevant medical treatment records from the Florida Department of Corrections from 1996 to 2002 and from April 2002 to February 2008. The Veteran did not respond, and the correspondence was not reported undeliverable. The AOJ contacted the Veteran again in March 2019, and he indicated there were no additional records to be sought. As such, the Board finds that the remand directive has been substantially complied with and the Board may proceed to consider the claims. Pursuant to the remand, the Veteran underwent a VA spine examination in February 2019 which diagnosed bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy secondary to the service-connected lumbosacral spine disability. He was service-connected for left lower extremity radiculopathy and right lower extremity radiculopathy at 10 percent disabling each, effective February 26, 2019. In a November 2019 decision, among other decisions, the Board granted a rating of 10 percent but no higher for a lumbosacral spine disability from February 16, 1994 to October 22, 2004, denied a rating in excess of 20 percent for a lumbosacral spine disability from October 22, 2004 to February 26, 2019, and denied entitlement to a TDIU. The Veteran appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In November 2020, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Remand and remanded the issues back to the Board finding that Board did not provide adequate reasons and bases regarding the denial of a rating in excess of 10 percent for the service-connected lumbosacral spine disability from February 16, 1994, to October 22, 2002, and in excess of 20 percent from October 22, 2002, to February 26, 2019, nor for the denial of a TDIU. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the service-connected lumbosacral spine disability from February 16, 1994, to October 22, 2002, and in excess of 20 percent from October 22, 2002, to February 26, 2019 Following the November 2019 Board decision, the Veteran’s lumbosacral spine disability was rated as 10 percent disabling from February 16, 1994 to October 22, 2002 and 20 percent disabling from October 22, 2002 to February 26, 2019. From February 26, 2019 to the present the Veteran’s back has been rated as 40 percent disabling. The Veteran agrees with that 40 percent rating and seeks to have it applied to the entire period on appeal. The Board notes that the regulations for rating disabilities of the spine have been changed twice during the period on appeal. The first change was made effective September 23, 2002, and the second on September 26, 2003. If a law or regulation changes during the course of a claim or an appeal, the version more favorable to the veteran will apply, to the extent permitted by any stated effective date in the amendment in question. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (g); VAOPGCPREC 3-2000. See Kuzma v. Principi, 341 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003); VAOPGCPREC 7-2003. Because the revisions to the spine disability rating criteria pertinent to this case have a specified effective date without provision for retroactive application, they may not be applied prior to the effective date. As of that effective date, the Board must apply whichever version of the rating criteria is more favorable to the veteran. As such, the Board will consider the Veteran’s increased rating claim under the three sets of regulatory criteria in effect throughout different times in the appeal period. Under the rating criteria in effect prior to September 23, 2002, under Diagnostic Code 5295, a noncompensable rating required lumbosacral strain with slight subjective symptoms only; a 10 percent rating required lumbosacral strain with characteristic pain on motion; a 20 percent rating required lumbosacral strain with muscle spasm on extreme forward bending, loss of lateral spine motion, unilateral, in standing position; and a 40 percent rating required a severe lumbosacral strain with listing of whole spine to opposite side, positive Goldthwaite’s sign, marked limitation of forward bending in standing position, loss of lateral motion with osteoarthritic changes, or narrowing or irregularity of joint space, or some of the above with abnormal mobility on forced motion. Under former Diagnostic Code 5295, a 40 percent rating was the maximum assignable rating; however, a maximum 60 percent rating was assignable under former Diagnostic Code 5293 for pronounced Intervertebral Disc Syndrome (IVDS) with persistent symptoms compatible with sciatic neuropathy with characteristic pain and demonstrable muscle spasm, absent ankle jerk, or other neurologic findings appropriate to site of diseased disc, little intermittent relief. Id. In addition, former Diagnostic Code 5292, Spine, limitation of motion of, lumbar, provided a 10 percent rating for slight limitation of motion; a 20 percent rating for moderate limitation of motion; and a 40 percent maximum rating for severe limitation of motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5292 (as in effect prior to September 23, 2002). Effective September 23, 2002, Diagnostic Code 5293 was amended to provide a 10 percent disability rating for IVDS with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least one week but less than 2 weeks during the past 12 months; a 20 percent disability rating for incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 2 weeks but less than 4 weeks during the past 12 months; a 40 percent disability rating for incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 4 weeks but less than 6 weeks during the past 12 months; and a 60 percent disability rating for intervertebral disc syndrome with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months. 38 C.F.R. § § 4.71a. An incapacitating episode is a period of acute signs and symptoms due to intervertebral disc syndrome that requires bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. Id. at Note (1). Effective September 26, 2003, disabilities of the spine are rated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (for Diagnostic Codes 5235 to 5243, unless 5243 is evaluated under the Formula for Rating IVDS Based on Incapacitating Episodes). Ratings under the General Rating Formula are made with or without symptoms such as pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching in the area of the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease. The General Rating Formula provides for assignment of a 10 percent rating for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees; or muscle spasm, guarding, or localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; or, vertebral body fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of the height. A 20 percent rating is assigned where forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine is not greater than 120 degrees; or muscle spasm or guarding is severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. A 40 percent rating requires forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine of 30 degrees or less, or favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent rating requires unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 100 percent rating requires unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. For VA compensation purposes, normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is zero to 90 degrees, extension is zero to 30 degrees, left and right lateral flexion is zero to 30 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation is zero to 30 degrees. 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. The normal ranges of motion for each component of spinal motion provided in this note are the maximum that can be used for calculation of the combined range of motion. See 38 C.F.R. § § 4.71a, General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine at Note (2); see also 38 C.F.R. § § 4.71a, Plate V. For VA compensation purposes, unfavorable ankylosis is 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. Fixation of a spinal segment in neutral position (zero degrees) always represents favorable ankylosis. Id. at Note (5). The Notes following the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine provide further guidance for rating diseases or injuries of the spine. Note (1) provides that any associated objective neurologic abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, should be rated separately under an appropriate diagnostic code. The September 26, 2003, amendments codified the prior Diagnostic Code 5293 criteria into the Formula for Rating IVDS Based on Incapacitating Episodes. Turning to the evidence of record, a March 1992 spine x-ray examination yielded normal results. In February 1993, the Veteran reported continuing chronic low back pain and was provided back strengthening exercises, evaluated for a TENS unit, and was referred for physical therapy. He did not attend any appointments however and was discontinued from physical therapy. He again reported chronic low back pain in March 1994. A VA clinician noted that he had range of motion within normal limits and all functional mobility. Muscle spasms were noted in the spinal musculature. The Veteran was fitted for a TENS unit for control of pain. Another x-ray was obtained in May 1995 which indicated a normal spine. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2002 in which he reported constant low back pain. He stated that he had been given multiple pain medications and had received several steroid injections but was currently on prednisone on an as-needed basis. He denied any radiculopathy, sensory changes, or bowel/bladder dysfunction. Examination of the spine revealed minimal mid and low lumbar paraspinous palpable tenderness and intact lumbar curvature. Forward flexion was to 60 degrees with pain, more marked on the right without spasm; extension was to 20 degrees; and lateral flexion and rotation bilaterally was to 30 degrees. The examiner diagnosed lumbosacral strain syndrome with constant low back pain, reduced range of motion without true radiculopathy and with intact sensory perception over the buttocks and down each lower extremity. In November 2004, the Veteran was seen in the emergency room with complaints of worsened back pain over the past two and a half months. His back was without tenderness on palpation and muscle strength was normal. An x-ray examination was radiographically normal. In October 2005, the Veteran reported aching back pain, aggravated by movement, and alleviated by pain medication. The Veteran reported aching, chronic low back pain in March 2008 which was aggravated by bending or stooping and alleviated by rest and use of a TENS unit. He was using ibuprofen to control pain which was not effective. In July 2008, the Veteran stated that after working a lot the previous week, he had increased low back pain for four days, radiating down the left leg. His pain medication was altered, and a back brace was ordered. Another x-ray was obtained in August 2008 which revealed slight straightening of the normal lumbar lordosis and no fracture, dislocation, disc space narrowing, spondylolisthesis, or lytic or blastic lesions. In September 2008, the Veteran reported lower back pain described as aching and sharp, aggravated by movement, and alleviated by use of a TENS unit. The effectiveness of his current treatment was described as fair. His treating physician stated that his back pain was manageable with a brace. The criteria in effect prior to September 23, 2002, may be used to evaluate the Veteran’s lumbosacral spine disability throughout the entire appeal period. Under the criteria in effect prior to September 23, 2002, the Board finds that a 10 percent disability rating is warranted from February 16, 1994, the date the Veteran filed his claim for an increased rating. The evidence, as described above, shows characteristic pain on motion which warrants a 10 percent evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5295. The Board notes that there was one notation of muscle spasm, however, there was no evidence of muscle spasm on extreme forward bending, loss of lateral spine motion, unilateral, in standing position. Further, the medical evidence did not demonstrate listing of the whole spine to the opposite side, positive Goldthwaite’s sign, marked limitation of forward bending in standing position, loss of lateral motion with osteoarthritic changes, or narrowing or irregularity of joint space, or some of the above with abnormal mobility on forced motion, warranting a higher evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5295. Additionally, range of motion was within normal limits, thus a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 5292 is not available. Finally, there was no evidence of IVDS meriting a rating under Diagnostic Code 5293. Within the one-year look-back period from the date of claim, there were reports of slight subjective symptoms including pain, but no evidence of painful movement. As such, a 10 percent rating, but no more, is warranted from February 16, 1994. The October 22, 2002, VA examination revealed forward flexion to 60 degrees. As such, and as this was the first ascertainable evidence of an increase in disability, a 20 percent rating is warranted as of that date under the rating criteria in effect prior to September 23, 2002. The reduced forward flexion and extension with pain on motion approximates a moderate limitation of motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5292. The limitation of range of motion was not severe, in that lateral flexion and rotation were normal bilaterally, thus a higher evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5292 is not warranted. Further, there was no evidence of listing of the whole spine to the opposite side, positive Goldthwaite’s sign, marked limitation of forward bending in standing position, loss of lateral motion with osteoarthritic changes, or narrowing or irregularity of joint space, or some of the above with abnormal mobility on forced motion, warranting a higher evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5295. Again, there was no evidence of IVDS indicating evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5293. Accordingly, a 20 percent rating, but no more, is warranted beginning October 22, 2002. From October 22, 2002 until February 26, 2019, treatment records showed ongoing, chronic low back pain, aggravated by overuse. Range of motion was largely normal with flare-ups of pain in the mornings. The evidence does not show that these flare-ups caused greater than moderate limitation of motion, such that a higher rating would be warranted. B. Criteria in Effect from September 23, 2002 The criteria in effect from September 23, 2002, may be used to evaluate the Veteran’s lumbosacral spine disability from September 23, 2002, to the present. The Veteran has not been diagnosed with IVDS since September 23, 2002. As such, the amendments to Diagnostic Code 5293 do not provide for higher evaluations for his lumbosacral spine disability at any point since that date. C. Criteria in Effect from September 26, 2003 The criteria in effect from September 26, 2003, may be used to evaluate the Veteran’s lumbosacral spine disability from September 26, 2003, to the present. Prior to the criteria going into effect, the October 2002 VA examination showed forward flexion to 60 degrees. From September 26, 2003, treatment records indicated ongoing, chronic low back pain, aggravated by overuse, and treated with pain medication and a TENS unit. There are few recordings of range of motion testing, but the Veteran had full range of motion without tenderness in a May 2014 treatment note. At the April 2016 hearing he described morning exacerbations requiring him to loosen up before he had full range of motion. His back condition was determined to result in pain and fatigue and limitations in bending, leaning, lifting/carrying, walking, prolonged sitting, and prolonged standing. The Board finds that the lumbosacral spine disability warrants a 20 percent evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5237 under the rating criteria in effect from September 26, 2003. There is no evidence of forward flexion limited to 30 degrees or less or of favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine throughout the appeal period. Further, there is no clinical evidence of IVDS. Taking into account the lay statements of record and the VA examiners’ statements regarding the functional impact of the service-connected lumbosacral spine disability, the Board finds that an evaluation in excess of 20 percent is not warranted under the criteria in effect since September 26, 2003. Based on the foregoing, the rating criteria most favorable to the Veteran is that which was in effect prior to September 23, 2002. Under that criteria, the lumbosacral spine disability warrants a 10 percent rating, but no higher, from February 16, 1994, to October 22, 2002, and a 20 percent rating, but no higher, from October 22, 2002, to February 26, 2019. The Board notes that the February 2019 VA examiner opined that there was no evidence of a change in severity of the Veteran’s lumbosacral spine disability since 1993. The Veteran contends that this opinion is probative and thus the findings of the February 2019 VA examination should be applied throughout the appeal period. However, the Board does not find this opinion to be based on any ascertainable fact in the Veteran’s claims file and thus does not give it any probative value. As explained above, the Veteran’s lumbosacral spine disability has progressively deteriorated since 1992. In March 1994, the Veteran’s range of motion was noted as within normal limits. By October 2002, the Veteran had flexion to 60 degrees, a limitation of 30 degrees and outside of normal limits. Most recently, in February 2019, the Veteran had flexion to 55 degrees, a limitation of 35 degrees. Thus, the February 2019 VA examiner’s opinion is clearly contradicted by both the Veteran’s lay statements regarding pain and limitation of motion and the medical evidence of record. As the clear facts of the case contradict the examiners statement, the Board gives it no weight. Entitlement to a TDIU Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, provided that if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more such 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Prior to October 22, 2002, the Veteran’s combined disability rating was 30 percent, consisting of a lumbosacral strain rated at 10 percent disabling, a right foot injury rated at 10 percent disabling and hiatal hernia rated at 10 percent disabling. From October 22, 2002 to February 26, 2019, the Veteran’s combined disability rating was 40 percent, consisting of a lumbosacral strain rated at 20 percent disabling, a right foot injury rated at 10 percent disabling and hiatal hernia rated at 10 percent disabling. Since February 26, 2019, the Veteran’s combined disability rating was 70 percent, consisting of a lumbosacral strain rated at 40 percent disabling, a right foot injury rated at 10 percent disabling and hiatal hernia rated at 10 percent disabling, tinnitus rated at 10 percent disabling, left lower extremity radiculopathy rated at 10 percent disabling, and right lower extremity radiculopathy rated at 10 percent disabling. Thus, prior to February 26, 2019 the Veteran did not meet the statutory threshold for a TDIU on a schedular basis. However, from February 26, 2019 the Veteran has a single disability rated at 40 percent and an overall disability rating of at least 70 percent, which is sufficient to satisfy the schedular requirement for a TDIU. VA will grant a total rating for compensation purposes based on unemployability when the evidence shows that the veteran is precluded, by reason of his service-connected disabilities, from obtaining and maintaining any form of gainful employment consistent with his education and occupational experience. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16. Unlike the analysis for increased rating claims, which are based on average levels of impairment, the analysis for a TDIU claim is based upon the individual. Consideration may be given to a veteran’s level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but not to his age or the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. Unlike the regular disability rating schedule which is based on the average work-related impairment caused by a disability, “entitlement to a TDIU is based on an individual’s particular circumstances.” Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 452 (2009). Substantially gainful employment is defined as work which is more than marginal, and which permits the individual to earn a living wage. Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (1991). Marginal employment is not considered to be substantially gainful employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a veteran’s earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. Id. Marginal employment may also be held to exist, on a facts-found basis (including, but not limited to, employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop), when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. For a Veteran to prevail on a claim for a TDIU rating, the sole fact that a claimant is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. A high rating in itself is a recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain and keep employment. The question is whether the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the Veteran can find employment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361 (1993). In determining whether a veteran can secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation, attention must be given to: The veteran's history, education, skill, and training; Whether the veteran has the physical ability (both exertional and nonexertional) to perform the type of activities (e.g., sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy) required by the occupation at issue. Factors that may be relevant include, but are not limited to, the veteran's limitations, if any, concerning lifting, bending, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, grasping, typing, and reaching, as well as auditory and visual limitations; and; Whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue. Factors that may be relevant include, but are not limited to, the veteran's limitations, if any, concerning memory, concentration, ability to adapt to change, handle workplace stress, get along with coworkers, and demonstrate reliability and productivity. Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019). The ultimate question of whether a Veteran is capable of substantially gainful employment is an adjudicatory determination, not a medical one. See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A]pplicable regulations place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the VA, not a medical examiner”). At the outset, the Board notes that the Veteran has multiple nonservice-connected disabilities which have been shown to affect his ability to engage in sustained employment, including bilateral knee problems, bilateral hip pain, bilateral wrist pain, a left shoulder condition, and a reattached left Achilles tendon. A review of the record indicates that the Veteran worked for many years as an electrician, lineman, and data technician, specializing in civil, residential, and commercial electrical work, as well as security camera, cable switch, router, A/C inverter, and solar panel installation. Additional skills noted in the Veteran’s work history are supervision of others, blueprint layout, and administrative responsibilities. The Veteran’s educational background includes a GED and several semesters of college education in computer science, computer-aided design, and general studies, and a year of mental health therapy training as part of a VA vocational rehabilitation program. He also had additional job corps training as a solar energy technician, in major appliance repair, and in occupational safety and health. In an April 2014 VA vocational rehabilitation assessment, it was noted that the Veteran had transferable skills in electrical, customer service, and telecommunications and that he would not require formal education to compete for jobs that would match his abilities, interests, and aptitudes. He was offered journeyman training by the electrical union but declined the offer. He also stated that he was offered suitable employment in California but declined that, as well. He reportedly left his last job after his hours were cut – he was not terminated by his employer. The counselor determined that the Veteran’s work restrictions included lifting, carrying, bending, squatting, pushing, pulling, reaching, and prolonged standing/walking. As he was able to maintain continuous employment over the previous several years, it was determined that he was able to obtain or maintain suitable and gainful employment that would not aggravate his service-connected disabilities with his current skills, lack of education, physical limitations, and current experience in the competitive labor market, and that unemployment was not outside of his control. January 2019 VA treatment records indicated that the Veteran was physically able to play basketball prior to sustaining a torn left Achilles tendon. The February 2019 VA examiner determined that the Veteran’s lumbosacral spine and radiculopathy disabilities and right foot injury would significantly impair the Veteran’s ability to perform a physically demanding job such as electrician or lineman, precluding him from some or all of the job’s requirements at least part of the time and likely much of the time. He would be limited in activities such as lifting, carrying, bending, leaning, twisting/turning, prolonged walking, prolonged sitting, or prolonged standing. The Veteran submitted a March 2019 VA Form 21-8940, Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability, upon which he reported that he could not follow a substantially gainful occupation due to disabilities of the back, right foot, right knee, left hip, hiatal hernia, tinnitus, right wrist, and right ankle. He stated that due to these disabilities, he had been unable to work since May 2015. The Veteran has described the activities of an electrician/lineman which included bending, twisting, climbing ladders, kneeling, crawling under desks, and engaging in other heavy physical activity. He noted that he has lost substantial time from work, due to both service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities. While the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities may prevent the heavy physical labor he performed as an electrician, he is able to perform sedentary and light duty work. The Board recognizes sedentary work in this context to mean work in an office type setting with minimal to no lifting or walking, such as that found in the transferrable skill field of customer service. Further, light duty work is meant to mean work that is not in an office type setting that involves minimal lifting, pushing, carrying, and walking, such as the Veteran’s past experience in supervising others and blueprint layout. The Board finds that referral for consideration of an extraschedular TDIU prior to February 2019 or entitlement to a schedular TDIU since February 2019 is not warranted. It is clear from the Veteran’s lay statements, medical records, and the VA examiner’s finding that his service-connected disabilities impair his ability to perform the functions of his career as an electrician/lineman. This impairment of function, however, is recognized by the ratings assigned to his service-connected disabilities. Further, as indicated in the Veteran’s resume, he has training and experience that would assist him in obtaining and maintaining a position that was not physically demanding (i.e., computer training, supervisory, and blueprint experience). He has, in fact, been offered at least two different positions since he last worked but has not accepted them. As such, although his service-connected disabilities may limit his ability to continue working as an electrician or lineman, they do not render him unable to maintain substantially gainful employment. Additionally, although the Veteran has ceased working, by his own admission, this decision was made due to both service-connected and the numerous nonservice-connected disabilities. In these circumstances, the Board concludes that the weight of the evidence does not support the conclusion that entitlement to TDIU benefits, or referral to the Director of Compensation Service for extraschedular consideration is warranted. MICHAEL KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Uller, 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.