Citation Nr: 21026787 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-24 192 DATE: May 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial rating of 40 percent for a lumbar spine disability is granted. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 7, 2005, for the grant of a separate disability rating for lower left extremity sciatica, secondary to Veteran's service-connected lumbar spine disability, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. From September 1980 onward, the Veteran's lumbar spine disability has been manifested by pain with occasional muscle spasms, and disc space narrowing resulting in a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease (DDD). 2. The law requiring VA to separately evaluate any objective neurologic abnormalities associated with the lumbar spine disability under an appropriate diagnostic code did not go into effect until September 26, 2003. 3. The Veteran did not raise the issue of entitlement to service connection for sciatica of his left lower extremity, to include as due to his lumbar spine disability, within a year of his discharge from service and did not again claim entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, including for any associated sciatica of his lower extremities, until January 17, 2007. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. From September 3, 1980, onward, the criteria for an initial 40 percent rating, but not higher, for a lumbar spine disability have 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 (DC) 5295. 2. The criteria for an effective date earlier than March 7, 2005, for the grant of service connection for sciatica of the left lower extremity associated with the Veteran's lumbar spine disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101(a), 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.151(a), 3.155, 3.400, 3.816. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from May 1970 to October 1974. The procedural history of this case has been set forth in detail in the prior actions in this appeal. Accordingly, the procedural history will only be repeated herein as necessary to explain the state of the issues currently before the Board. Most recently, in January 2021, This case has a long procedural history, but most recently was before the Board in January 2021, at which time the Board remanded, for further development, the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for history of recurrent low back pain superimposed on congenital spina bifida occulta and its associated complications, to include whether an effective date earlier than March 7, 2005. Specifically, the matter was remanded for the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to obtain all outstanding VA treatment records from the Salt Lake City VA Medical Center (VAMC) pertaining to treatment of the Veteran from 1981 to 2007. Records dated from May 2001 to October 2005 were associated with the claims file. Then, in January 2021, the AOJ made a specific request for records dated from January 1981 to April 2001 and from October 2005 to January 2007. A response received that same month indicated that the Salt Lake City VAMC had no records on file for the Veteran; the Veteran was subsequently informed of the unavailability of records. A memorandum dated in February 2021 notes that the Veteran registered with the Salt Lake VAMC in February 1986 and again in May 2001 and again in April 2009. Given these facts, the AOJ concluded that additional records do not exist. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the Board's prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand instructions). But see D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that only "substantial" rather than strict or exact compliance with the Board's remand directives is required under Stegall). Increased Rating The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an initial compensable rating for his lumbar spine disability, originally characterized as history of recurrent low back pain superimposed on congenital spina bifida occulta. By way of history, the August 2020 Board decision found that a March 1981 written letter from the Veteran constituted a notice of disagreement (NOD) and thus, that the initial January 1981 rating decision remained on appeal. The January 1981 rating decision granted the Veteran service connection for a lumbar spine disability only. As such, while the Veteran has explicitly appealed the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for left lower extremity sciatica secondary to his lumbar spine, the issue of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for a lumbar spine disability also remains on appeal. The Veteran was granted service connection for his lumbar spine disability, at a noncompensable level, effective September 3, 1980, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5295 for lumbosacral strain. Of note, DC 5295 is not currently in use for any disability as there have been multiple regulatory amendments during the pendency of this appeal. The Veteran was then awarded a compensable, 10 percent, rating for his lumbar spine disability under DC 5242, pertaining to degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine, effective March 7, 2005. Effective January 17, 2007, the Veteran's lumbar spine rating was increased to 20 percent. The schedular criteria for rating spine disabilities have been amended three times during the appeal period. The rating criteria pertaining to intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5293, were amended effective September 23, 2002. See 67 Fed. Reg. 54,345-54, 349 (August 22, 2002). Second, effective September 26, 2003, the rating criteria for evaluating all spine disorders were amended. See 68 Fed. Reg. 51,454-51, 458 (August 27, 2003); see also corrections at 69 Fed. Reg. 32, 449 (June 10, 2004). Finally, the rating criteria for the spine were most recently updated effective February 7, 2021. See Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Musculoskeletal System and Muscle Injuries, 85 Fed. Reg. 230 (Nov. 30, 2020). When, as here, the rating criteria are amended during the pendency of the appeal (review period), the Board considers both the former and revised criteria and applies whichever version is more favorable to the Veteran. However, should an increased rating be warranted under the revised criteria, the award may not be made effective before the effective date of the change unless expressly provided for in the regulation. See Kuzma v. Principi, 341 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g); 38 C.F.R. § 3.114; VAOPGCPREC 7-03; VAOPGCPREC 3-00, 65 Fed. Reg. 33,422 (April 10, 2000); As the period on appeal spans multiple regulatory amendments, the Veteran is entitled to the application of the then available criteria most favorable to his claim. See Diorio v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 193, 197 (2006), citing Swann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 229, 232 (1993) (recognizing that where law is amended during pendency of appellant's claim, the most favorable version applies); Rodriguez v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 275, 287 (2005). Thus, the Board will analyze the Veteran's claim based on the rating criteria in effect at that particular time. The basis of disability evaluation is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or infection in parts of the system, to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance. Functional loss may be due to the absence or deformity of structures or other pathology, or it may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior in undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part that becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40. With respect to joints, in particular, the factors of disability reside in reductions of normal excursion of movements in different planes. Inquiry will be directed to more or less than normal movement, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, pain on movement, swelling, deformity or atrophy of disuse. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45. The intent of the Rating Schedule is to recognize actually painful, unstable or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, as entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59; see Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011) (indicating to apply 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 even in cases that do not involve arthritis). Prior to September 23, 2002 Prior to September 23, 2002, the following criteria concerning the lumbar spine were in effect: A 100 percent disability rating was warranted for residuals of a vertebra fracture with cord involvement, bedridden, or requiring long leg braces. Residuals of a vertebra fracture without cord involvement, but with abnormal mobility requiring a neck brace (jury mast) warranted a 60 percent disability evaluation. In other cases, rating was in accordance with definite limited motion or muscle spasm, adding 10 percent for demonstrable deformity of vertebral body. Both under ankylosis and limited motion, ratings should not be assigned for more than one segment by reason of involvement of only the first or last vertebrae of an adjacent segment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5285 (2002). Complete bony fixation (ankylosis) of the spine at an unfavorable angle, with marked deformity and involvement of major joints (Marie-Strumpell type) or without other joint involvement (Bechterew type) warranted a 100 percent disability rating. Complete ankylosis of the spine at a favorable angle warranted a 60 percent disability rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5286 (2002). Favorable ankylosis of the lumbar spine warranted a 40 percent disability rating, and unfavorable ankylosis of the lumbar spine warranted a 50 percent disability rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5289 (2002). Slight limitation of motion of the lumbar segment of the spine warranted a 10 percent evaluation. Moderate limitation of motion warranted a 20 percent evaluation. Severe limitation of motion warranted a 40 percent disability evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5292 (2002). Intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) was rated as 10-percent disabling if mild. A 20 percent evaluation was assigned for moderate IVDS, with recurring attacks. A 40 percent evaluation contemplated severe IVDS, characterized by recurrent attacks with intermittent relief. A 60 percent evaluation was warranted for pronounced IVDS, with persistent symptoms compatible with sciatic neuropathy with characteristic pain and demonstrable muscle spasm, absent ankle jerk, or other neurological findings appropriate to the site of the diseased disc, with little intermittent relief. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5293 (2002). A lumbosacral strain warranted a 0 percent (or noncompensable) rating with slight subjective symptoms only. Characteristic pain on motion warranted a 10 percent rating. Muscle spasm on extreme forward bending, loss of lateral spine motion, unilateral in a standing position warranted a 20 percent rating. A 40 percent rating was warranted for severe strain with listing of whole spine to opposite side, positive Goldthwaithe's sign, marked limitation of forward bending in standing position, loss of lateral motion with osteo-arthritic changes, or narrowing or irregularity of joint space, or some of the above with abnormal mobility on forced motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5295 (2002). DC 5294 for sacro-iliac injury and weakness was rated on the same criteria. Id., DC 5294. These descriptive words "slight," "moderate," "severe," and "pronounced" were not defined in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Rather than applying a mechanical formula, the Board must evaluate all the evidence, to the end that its decisions are "equitable and just." 38 C.F.R. § 4.6. Although the criteria under DCs 5292 and 5295 were less defined than the current criteria and numerical ranges of motion were not provided, guidance can be obtained from the amended regulations. In adopting specific ranges of motion to define what is normal, VA stated that the ranges of motion were based on the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 2nd ed., (1984), which is the last edition of the Guides that measured range of motion of the spine using a goniometer. See supplementary information, 67 Fed. Reg. 56,509 (Sept. 4, 2002). In other words, even though pre-2003 regulations did not define normal range of motion for the spine, the current definition is based on medical guidelines in existence since 1984, and the Board may consider the current ranges of motion to rate spine disabilities under the old criteria. September 23, 2002, Rating Criteria On September 23, 2002, new rating criteria pertaining to IVDS went into effect. Other criteria pertaining to the spine remained unchanged. Using the criteria effective September 23, 2002 for evaluating IVDS, incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least one week, but less than 2 weeks during the past 12 months warranted a rating of 10 percent. Incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 2 weeks, but less than 4 weeks during the past 12 months warranted a rating of 20 percent. Incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 4 weeks, but less than 6 weeks during the past 12 months warranted a rating of 30 percent. Incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months warranted a rating of 60 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5293 (2003). Note (1): For purposes of evaluations under 5293, an incapacitating episode is a period of acute signs and symptoms due to IVDS that requires bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. "Chronic orthopedic and neurologic manifestations" means orthopedic and neurologic signs and symptoms resulting from IVDS that are present constantly, or nearly so. Note (2): When evaluating on the basis of chronic manifestations, evaluate orthopedic disabilities using evaluation criteria for the most appropriate orthopedic diagnostic code or codes. Evaluate neurologic disabilities separately using evaluation criteria for the most appropriate neurologic diagnostic code or codes. Note (3): If IVDS is present in more than one spinal segment, provided that the effects in each spinal segment are clearly distinct, evaluate each segment on the basis of chronic orthopedic and neurologic manifestations or incapacitating episodes, whichever method results in a higher evaluation for that segment. The medical and other relevant evidence of record does not show the Veteran had a diagnosis of IVDS until 2018, so a rating under DC 5293 for IVDS prior to that point would be inappropriate. September 26, 2003, Rating Criteria The new regulations that took effect on September 26, 2003, revised the schedular criteria for rating of all spine disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DCs 5235-5243 (2004). Under the revised criteria, all spine disabilities are rated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (DCs 5235-5242), and IVDS is rated instead under DC 5243. According to the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, with or without symptoms such as pain (whether or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching in the area of the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease, unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine warrants a 100 percent rating. Unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar (thoracic and lumbar) spine warrants a 50 percent rating. Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine limited to 30 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine warrants a 40 percent rating. Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees or, the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or, muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spine contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis warrants a 20 percent rating. Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 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 warrants a 10 percent rating. Pertinent notes applicable to the General Formula are as follows: Note (1): Evaluate any associated objective neurological abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, separately, under an appropriate diagnostic code. Note (2): (See also Plate V.) For VA compensation purposes, normal forward flexion of the cervical spine is zero to 45 degrees, extension is zero to 45 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 45 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 80 degrees. Normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is zero to 90 degrees, extension is zero to 30 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are 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 cervical spine is 340 degrees and 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. Under DC 5243, IVDS may be rated under either the General Formula or under the Formula for Rating IVDS Based on Incapacitating Episodes. Under the Formula for Rating IVDS, incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least one week but less than 2 weeks during the past 12 months warrants a rating of 10 percent. Incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 2 weeks but less than 4 weeks during the past 12 months warrants a rating of 20 percent. Incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 4 weeks but less than 6 weeks during the past 12 months warrants a rating of 30 percent. Incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months warrants a rating of 60 percent. Note (1): For purposes of evaluating under DC 5243, an incapacitating episode is a period of acute signs and symptoms due to IVDS that require bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. Note (2): If IVDS is present in more than one spinal segment, provided that the effects in each spinal segment are clearly distinct, evaluate each segment on the basis of incapacitating episodes or under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, whichever method results in a higher evaluation for that segment. Here, though, there is no probative evidence of ankylosis of any segment of the Veteran's spine (cervical, thoracic or lumbar (thoracolumbar)). Further, there is no noted IVDS until 2018. February 7, 2021 Rating Criteria Under the February 7, 2021, regulatory amendments, DC 5242 was amended to specify that it pertains to degenerative arthritis, DDD other than IVDS (also, see either DC 5003 or 5010). However, this DC is still to be rated under the General Formula for Disease and Injuries of the Spine, which was not changed under the February 7, 2021 amendments. See 85 Fed. Reg. 230 (Nov. 30, 2020). Additionally, DC 5243 for IVDS specified that this DC is only to be assigned when there is disc herniation with compression and/or irritation of the adjacent nerve root; and DC 5242 should be assigned for all other disc diagnoses. The medical evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has a disc herniation and thus, DC 5243 for IVDS is not for application. See id. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for a lumbar spine disability. The Veteran initially underwent a VA lumbar spine examination in December 1980. During this examination, the Veteran reported that he was diagnosed with a lumbar strain during service and his present complaints included a "tight feeling in lower back continuous dull pain." He also reported a muscle spasm that caused him difficulty in standing after sitting or lounging, and a curvature of the lower spine forcing him to "slant" to the right. He had X-rays taken at the time of this examination, and he again reported that he had tightness in his back that was caused by bending over to tie his shoes. However, upon physical examination, the Veteran had a full range of motion, was able to dress and undress normally, jumped on and off of the examination table, was able to perform straight leg raising to 80 degrees, had a negative Lasegue's sign and sciatic notch, and his deep tendon reflexes were normal. In April 1981, the Veteran submitted an additional X-ray report of his lumbar spine, dated November 1980, which confirmed a diagnosis of transitional vertebrae at S1 with spina bifida occulta at that level and with disc space narrowing at L5-S1, consistent with DDD and a slight scoliosis with apex to the left. 1. The Board finds that this November 1980 treatment record is consistent with a 40 percent rating under DC 5295, in effect prior to September 26, 2003, as it shows narrowing of the disc spaces. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5295 (2002). A March 1982 treatment record shows that the Veteran complained of something "snapping" in his back the night prior and presented with listing to the right. The Veteran stated that he had a muscle spasm, but this was not diagnosed by the doctor. He was prescribed medication for lumbar spine pain. Notably, characteristic pain on motion is consistent with a 10 percent rating under DC 5295. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5295 (2002). The Veteran additionally submitted a copy of VA treatment records from a one-time treatment in February 1986. This record shows that the Veteran presented to a VA emergency room requesting painkillers for lumbar spine pain. However, upon examination, the Veteran was not observed to have any pain or tenderness on palpation and he was noted as being "in mild distress." There is then a substantial gap in the evidence of record, due to inactivity and not seeking treatment from VA, from the March 1982 until June 2001. A VA treatment record from March 7, 2005, shows that the Veteran complained of lumbar spine pain with chronic muscle spasms. The Veteran again underwent a VA lumbar spine examination in May 2007 at which time he complained of constant pain with functional impairment of moving slower at work, general feelings of apprehension with movement, and avoiding sports. The Veteran had forward flexion to 75 degrees, with pain starting at 60 degrees, but had full extension. The examiner noted some signs of IVDS, however with no incapacitating episodes. X-rays showed DDD (disc space narrowing) in the lumbar spine. Overall, the May 2007 VA examiner changed the Veteran's lumbar strain diagnosis to a diagnosis of lumbar spine DDD based on subjective back pain, stiffness, weakness, decreased flexion, and DDD. He provided a secondary diagnosis of IVDS with sciatic involvement. Again, the Board points out that a 40 percent rating under the regulations in effect prior to September 26, 2003, was warranted for severe strain with listing of whole spine to opposite side, positive Goldthwaithe's sign, marked limitation of forward bending in standing position, loss of lateral motion with osteo-arthritic changes, or pertinently here, narrowing or irregularity of joint space, or some of the above with abnormal mobility on forced motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5295 (2002) (emphasis added). X-ray examinations taken during the May 2007 VA examination continue to show narrowing of the Veteran's disc space and are indicative of DDD. The Board finds that the May 8, 2007, VA examination reports is consistent with a 40 percent rating for the Veteran's lumbar spine disability under the regulations in effect prior to September 26, 2003. As noted above, because this claim spans multiple regulatory amendments, the regulation most favorable to the Veteran will be applied. In this case, the regulations in effect prior to September 26, 2003, are more favorable to the Veteran and thus will be applied through the pendency of the appeal. As such, from September 3, 1980, onward, the Veteran is entitled to a 40 percent rating, but not higher, for his lumbar spine disability. However, the medical evidence of record does not support an even higher rating under any of the applicable DCs, as there is no evidence of ankylosis, IVDS causing incapacitating episodes or disc herniation, or vertebra fracture or any residuals thereof. Earlier Effective Date Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 7, 2005 for grant of service connection for lower left extremity sciatica, secondary to lumbar spine disability. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an effective date of September 3, 1980, for the award of service connection for lower left extremity sciatica, associated with his lumbar spine disability (then service connected as history of recurrent low back pain superimposed on congenital spina bifida occulta). The basis of this claim is that he had symptoms of sciatica due to his lumbar spine disability during service and prior to the current effective date of March 7, 2005. The first thing worth pointing out in response to this argument, however, is that the effective date for an award of service connection is not generally predicated on the date of medical or other evidence showing or suggesting the Veteran had the condition at issue or even commonly associated symptoms; instead, it is based on when he actually filed a claim for the condition. In other words, in the absence of sufficient manifestation of an intent to apply for benefits for a particular disease or injury, a document providing medical information in and of itself is not an informal claim for VA benefits. See Ellington v. Nicholson, 22 Vet. App. 141 (2007). The general rule for an effective date for service connection provides that, if a claim for disability compensation is received within one year after separation from service, the effective date of entitlement will be either the day following separation from service or the date entitlement arose. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1). A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary of VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a). A "claim" is defined broadly to include a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-5 (1998). Any communication indicating an intent to apply for a benefit under the laws administered by VA may be considered an informal claim provided it identifies, but not necessarily with specificity, the benefit sought. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). To determine when a claim was received, the Board must review all communications in the claims file that may be construed as an application or claim. See Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992). Where a prior unappealed decision becomes final and binding on a Veteran, the effective date of a subsequent award of service connection is the date of receipt of the reopened claim, not the date of receipt of the original claim. Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244 (2002); Melton v. West, 13 Vet. App. 442 (2000). Here, the Veteran is arguing that his left lower extremity sciatica associated with his lumbar spine disability should have been inferred from his original September 1980 claim for benefits when he alleged "recurring lower sacroil [sic] strain" and "acute L/S strain 11-71 [this is a reference to the date of treatment]". He therefore believes he is entitled to an earlier effective date of September 3, 1980, for his left lower extremity sciatica, in other words, the same effective date that he has been granted for his underlying lumbar spine disability. However, the effective date for a secondarily service-connected condition is not identical to that of the original condition; the effective date could arise no earlier than the date on which the appellant applied for benefits for the condition at issue (secondary condition). See Ellington v. Nicholson, 541 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The effective date assigned for a secondary service-connected condition does not have to be the same as the effective date for the underlying condition simply because 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 states that a "secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition." See Ross v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 528 (2008). An October 1971 service treatment record (STR) shows that the Veteran complained of pain in the left sacroiliac area with radicular symptoms of left lower extremity. This shows that the Veteran did have symptoms of left lower extremity sciatica during active service. Despite a showing of left lower extremity sciatica during service, the Veteran's initial September 1980 claim did not include a claim for sciatica (or other neurological disability) of either lower extremity, to include as due to his low back or lumbar spine disability. Instead, his original claim only was for his lumbar spine disability, including lumbar and sacroiliac strains. In addition to not making an explicit claim for lower extremity radiculopathy in his initial September 1980 claim for benefits, during his December 1980 VA back examination in response to his initial claim he reported no symptoms of sciatica. More specifically, at the time of the December 1980 VA examination, the Veteran reported that initially he hurt his lumbar spine by lifting a heavy hose by himself, and the pain was diagnosed as an acute L/S strain, which was severe enough to warrant retraining to a new military occupational specialty (MOS). The Veteran's then-current symptoms included a tight feeling in his lower back with continuous dull pain, a muscular spasm causing difficulty standing, and the examiner observed that there was a curvature in the Veteran's lumbar spine. There were no contentions by the Veteran nor observations by the examiner that the Veteran had any sciatica or symptoms thereof, including in his left lower extremity. The Veteran also had X-rays taken at the December 1980 examination, and the Veteran reported no symptoms other than some tightness in his lumbar spine. A February 1986 VA treatment record shows the Veteran complained of low back pain with tingling in his legs. However, upon examination, the Veteran's neurological system was noted to be intact and the assessment was low back pain. No diagnosis of sciatica was rendered. Effective September 26, 2003, VA revised the schedular criteria for the rating of all spine disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DCs 5235-5243 (2004). Pursuant to this regulatory change, all DCs pertaining to the spine, outside of IVDS, are rated according to the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine. Id. This also includes Note (1) to the General Rating Formula for Disease and Injuries of the Spine: Evaluate any associated objective neurological abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, separately, under an appropriate diagnostic code. Id. Note (1). This means that the regulatory change requiring VA to separately rate neurological abnormalities associated with spinal disabilities did not go into effect until September 26, 2003. Despite this regulation going into effect on September 26, 2003, the medical evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's left lower extremity sciatica was symptomatic prior to the current effective date of March 7, 2005. Indeed, VA treatment records dated from June 2001 onwards are largely silent as to any lower left extremity sciatica or symptoms thereof until March 7, 2005. A September 2003 VA treatment record shows that the Veteran denied any neurologic symptoms including weakness and denied paresthesias. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to an earlier effective date of September 26, 2003, in line with the regulatory change requiring VA to separately rate neurological abnormalities associated with spinal disabilities. The medical evidence of record is largely silent as to complaints of sciatica or symptoms thereof until the current effective date, March 7, 2005. An even earlier effective date back to in September 1980 for this lower left extremity sciatica associated with the lumbar spine disability is also not warranted. The Veteran did not include any lower extremity sciatica in his original September 1980 claim for benefits. Moreover, for the period from September 1980 to September 26, 2003, the law did not require VA to separately rate neurologic abnormalities associated with spinal disabilities sua sponte and, thus, there is no basis for awarding an effective date requiring this prior to the regulatory change on September 26, 2003. Finally, the earliest medical evidence of record showing complaints of sciatica symptoms is from March 7, 2005. Resultantly, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to an effective date earlier than March 7, 2005, for the award of service connection for his left lower extremity sciatica that is associated with his lumbar spine disability. KRISTIN E. NEILSON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Pak 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.