Citation Nr: 21028520 Decision Date: 05/11/21 Archive Date: 05/11/21 DOCKET NO. 17-34 140 DATE: May 11, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for lumbar degenerative disc disease (lumbar spine disability) with intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) is denied. Entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) due to combined service-connected disabilities is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The competent evidence of record shows that the Veteran's forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine was, at worst, limited to 80 degrees or less and that the Veteran was found to experience incapacitating episodes with a total duration of more than two weeks but less than four weeks; ankylosis of the thoracolumbar spine or of the entire spine and IVDS with incapacitating episodes with a total duration of more than four weeks has not been shown. 2. The competent evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities render him unable to secure and maintain gainful employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a lumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 5243 (2020). 2. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU due to service-connected disabilities have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.15, 4.16, 4.25 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1969 to October 1970. These matters come before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) from an October 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Janesville, Wisconsin. In March 2015, the Veteran timely submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD) and in June 2017 the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC). In June 2017, the Veteran filed a substantive appeal and requested a hearing. In January 2020 the Veteran testified via videoconference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. In a February 2020 decision, the Board remanded these issues for additional development, which has been substantially completed. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a lumbar spine disability with IVDS is denied. The Veteran is seeking a higher disability rating for his service connected back disability. Specifically, he contends that his back condition is worse than reflected by his currently assigned disability rating. He also asserts that he has had incapacitating episodes for which he has had to use his vacation days. See January 2020 Board Hearing Tr. A disability rating is determined by the application of VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and their residual conditions in civil occupations. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations that are potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusions. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, 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. The Board will consider whether separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, a practice known as "staged ratings," whether it is an initial rating case or not. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-27 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The Board has reviewed the entire record but will only discuss the evidence necessary to explain its decision. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence); see Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the Veteran). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 49. Here, the Veteran has been assigned a 20 percent rating for his lumbar spine disability under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5243. Disabilities of the spine are rated under the General Rating Formula for Diagnostic Codes 5235 to 5243, unless 5243 is evaluated under the Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes (IVDS Rating Formula); whichever method results in the higher evaluation when all disabilities are combined will be used. Here, ratings 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Under the General Rating Formula, a 20 percent disability rating is assigned for 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 spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. A 40 percent disability rating is assigned for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent disability rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 100 percent disability rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of entire spine. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-5242. Any associated objective neurological abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, are to be evaluated separately under an appropriate diagnostic code. Id. at Note 1. Ankylosis is defined as "immobility and consolidation of a joint due to disease, injury, or surgical procedure." Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 94 (32nd ed. 2012). Fixation of a spinal segment in neutral position (zero degrees) always represents favorable ankylosis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-5242, Note 5. For disabilities evaluated on the basis of limitation of motion, VA is required to apply the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, pertaining to functional impairment. The Court has instructed that in applying these regulations, VA should obtain examinations in which the examiner determines whether the disability is manifested by weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, or pain. Such inquiry is not to be limited to muscles or nerves. These determinations are, if feasible, to be expressed in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to any weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, flare-ups, or pain. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011); Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80, 84-5 (1997); 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. Under the IVDS Rating Formula, a 20 percent rating is warranted 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 rating is warranted for incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 4 weeks but less than 6 weeks during the past 12 months. A 60 percent rating requires incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5243. An incapacitating episode is defined as a period of acute signs and symptoms due to IVDS that required bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. When evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities based on limitation of motion, 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 requires consideration of functional loss caused by pain or other factors listed in that section that could occur during flare-ups or after repeated use and, therefore, not be reflected on range-of-motion testing. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 requires consideration also be given to less movement than normal, more movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 44 (2011). Nonetheless, even when the background factors listed in § 4.40 or 4.45 are relevant when evaluating a disability, the rating is assigned based on the extent to which motion is limited, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a ; a separate or higher rating under § 4.40 or 4.45 itself is not appropriate. See Thompson v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[I]t is clear that the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran's disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria."). Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, painful motion is a factor to be considered with any form of arthritis; however, 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 is not limited to disabilities involving arthritis. See Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011). Turning to the evidence of record, VA and private treatment records do not show symptoms more severe than those noted during the VA examinations. In an August 2014 VA back examination, the Veteran was found to have degenerative arthritis of the spine and IVDS. He reported a constant achy pain. He stated that he could not sit or stand all day and could not sit for more than one hour. He could not walk for more than 2 hours. Regarding employment, he was the plant manager of a factory and could come off the factory floor to sit and rest. He also reported flareups. Initial range of motion (ROM) testing revealed flexion to 85 degrees, normal extension, and a combined ROM of the thoracolumbar spine of 125 degrees. Functional impairment causing additional loss of ROM included less movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and impaired ability to execute skilled movements, pain on movement, swelling, deformity, atrophy of disuse, disturbance of locomotion, and interference with sitting. During flare-ups, the Veteran's was found to have 5 degrees less of flexion and decreased extension by 10 degrees. There was no tenderness, muscle spasm, or guarding. Muscle spasm was normal aside from his right knee what was active movement against gravity. There was muscle atrophy in his right thigh due to his service-connected gunshot wound. There was no noted ankylosis. Regarding the Veteran's IVDS, the Veteran was found to have incapacitating episodes with a total duration of more than two weeks but less than four weeks over the past 12 months. In his March 2014 NOD, the Veteran reported that he had had more than 4 weeks of incapacitating episodes but had not spoken to a medical professional about his episodes. See also January 2020 Board Hearing Transcript. He also submitted in March 2014 a buddy statement that describes the Veteran's chronic pain. In September 2020, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The Veteran reported that his condition had worsened. When he walks, or walks too long, or sits too long, he feels the pain. He also reported flareups and aggravation if he tried to lift something like a case of water when grocery shopping, or with other daily lifting. Initial ROM testing revealed flexion to 90 degrees and a total combined ROM of the thoracolumbar spine of 240 degrees. During flareups, the Veteran ROM was estimated to have forward flexion limited to 90 degrees and a total combined ROM of the thoracolumbar spine of 230 degrees. There was no guarding. The examiner noted that the Veteran has increased strain on the spine due to altered gait from knee injury. The Veteran had normal muscle strength, with the exception of right knee extension where there was no muscle movement. There was no noted radiculopathy or ankylosis of the spine. Regarding the Veteran's IVDS, the Veteran was not found to have incapacitating episodes that required prescribed bedrest within the past 12 months. Considering the evidence of record and based on the applicable legal criteria, the Board finds that a disability rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted for the Veteran's lumbar spine disability. Specifically, the record shows that during the pendency of the appeal the Veteran's forward flexion was, at worse, limited to 80 degrees. The Veteran's VA treatment records, private treatment records, lay assertions, and VA examinations are negative for any evidence of immobility or ankylosis. Therefore, based on the objective medical evidence of record, the Veteran's disability picture most is most closely approximated by a lower disability rating and his symptomatology does not more nearly approximate a higher disability rating of 30 percent or more for limitation of motion. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the Veteran's competent lay assertions, to include pain and difficulty lifting objects. The Veteran is certainly competent to describe his observations and the Board finds that his statements are credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (noting that personal knowledge is "that which comes to the witness through the use of his senses-that which is heard, felt, seen, smelled, or tasted"). However, the Board finds that the objective medical findings by skilled professionals, which incorporate the Veteran's competent assertions provide the most persuasive evidence regarding the limitations posed by the Veteran's lumbar spine disability. The Board has also considered whether for the periods on appeal the Veteran is entitled to a higher rating for his back disability based on the IVDS Rating Formula. As noted above, the Veteran has IVDS and has been prescribed bedrest for at least 2 weeks but not more than 4 four weeks during the appeal period. As such, there is no indication in the record that the Veteran has experienced incapacitating episodes of IVDS having a total duration of at least 4 weeks, so as to warrant a higher disability rating of 40 percent for IVDS. In reaching this conclusion, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's competent lay assertions, to include having to use vacation day for bedrest. As noted above, the Veteran is certainly competent to describe his observations and the Board finds that his statements are credible. See Layno, supra. There is, however, no evidence that bed rest was prescribed by a physician and treated by a physician during this time frame for a period of time in excess of 4 weeks. Rather, the Veteran asserts that he did not seek medical care. As bed rest must be prescribed by a physician, the absence of objective evidence reflecting bed rest is given more probative weight than his statements as to the need to have bed rest. In light of the lack of evidence demonstrating any episodes requiring bedrest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician for IVDS, the Board must find that a higher rating under the Formula for Rating IVDS based on Incapacitating Episodes is not warranted during this time. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for the Veteran's lumbar spine disability with IVDS is not warranted. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017). Because a preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applicable, and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU due to combined service-connected disabilities is denied. The Veteran is seeking entitlement to a TDIU. Specifically, he contends that he was laid off because he could not meet his work demands due to his service-connected knee disability. See January 2020 Board Hearing Tr. As noted above, in a February 2020 decision, the Board remanded this issue for additional development. Specifically, in pertinent part, the Board found that a claim for a TDIU was raised as part of a pending increased rating claim and remanded the TDIU claim to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. The Veteran and his representative were sent written correspondence seeking information regarding the Veteran's employment, training, and educational history. See April 2020 Subsequent Development Letter. However, the Veteran has not provided the requested information. The Board notes that the duty to assist is not a one-way street. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). If a Veteran wants help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where his own actions are essential in obtaining evidence. Id. As the requested information has not been received, the Board will proceed with adjudication for the appellant's TDIU claim with the evidence of record. Total disability will be considered to exist when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.340. If the total rating is based on a disability or combination of disabilities for which the Schedule for Rating Disabilities provides an evaluation of less than 100 percent, it must be determined that the service-connected disabilities are sufficient to produce unemployability without regard to advancing age. 38 C.F.R. § 3.341. When determining whether the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due to his service-connected disabilities, consideration may be given to the Veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but it may not be given to his or her age or to any impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. If the schedular rating is less than total, a total disability evaluation may be assigned based on individual unemployability if a veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disability, provided that he has one service-connected disability rated at 60 percent or higher; or two or more service-connected disabilities, with one disability rated at 40 percent or higher and the combined rating is 70 percent or higher. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Here, for the period on appeal, the Veteran is service-connected for right knee fibrous ankylosis (50 percent); posttraumatic stress disorder (30 percent); residuals of gunshot wound of the right arm (20 percent), right leg muscle group (10 percent), and right lower extremity (20 percent); right ankle disability (20 percent); lumbar spine disability (20 percent); right leg discrepancy (10 percent); left hip disability (10 percent); painful scar (10 percent); and left knee disability (10 percent). He is also service connected for left hip disability, right knee ankylosis, hearing loss, and left hip impairment. He has, at minimum, a 90 percent combined disability rating. As such, the Veteran meets the objective criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 for consideration of a TDIU. The central inquiry therefore lies in whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability. See Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993). Whether a veteran is capable of substantial gainful employment is not a medical one but is rather a determination for the adjudicator. See Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Substantially gainful employment is defined as work which permits the individual to earn a living wage. Moore v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 356 (1991). Substantially gainful employment does not include marginal employment, which is generally deemed to exist when a veteran's earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. Marginal employment may also be held to exist on a factual basis, including but not limited to employment in a protected environment such as family business or sheltered workshop, when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a); see also Ortiz-Valles v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 65, 71 (2016) ("[T]he only logical reading of the regulation compels the conclusion that a veteran might be found unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation when the evidence demonstrates that he or she cannot secure or follow an occupation capable of producing income that is more than marginal-i.e., with income that exceeds the amount published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person."). In Faust v. West, 13 Vet. App. 342 (2000), the Court defined "substantially gainful employment" as an occupation that provides an annual income that exceeds the poverty threshold for one person, irrespective of the number of hours or days that the Veteran actually works and without regard to the veteran's earned annual income. More recently, the Court clarified that the establishment of a TDIU has both an economic component and a non-economic component. Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019). The economic component means an occupation earning more than marginal income (outside of a protected environment) as determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the poverty threshold for one person. The non-economic component includes consideration of: the Veteran's history, education, skill, and training; whether the veteran has the physical ability to perform the type of activities required by the occupation at issue; and whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue. The Board acknowledges that the Secretary, as of this decision, has not defined "protected environment." Therefore, it is at the Board's discretion on a case-by-case basis based on the information and evidence of record. The Board notes, however, that Merriam-Webster defines "protect" primarily as "to cover or shield from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction", see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protect, and defines "environment" primarily as "the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded", see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/environment. As a preliminary matter, the Board acknowledges that for the rating period on appeal beginning August 26, 2018, the Veteran is in receipt of a combined schedular disability rating of 100 percent. The Court has recognized that a 100 percent rating under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities indicates that a veteran is totally disabled. Holland v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 443, 446 (1994), citing Swan v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 20, 22 (1990). Thus, if VA has found a veteran to be totally disabled as a result of a particular service-connected disability or combination of disabilities pursuant to the rating schedule, there is no need, and no authority, to otherwise rate that veteran totally disabled on any other basis. See Locklear v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 311, 314 n.2 (2011) (finding entitlement to TDIU mooted from the effective date of a 100 percent schedular disability rating); see also Herlehy v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 33, 35 (2001) (finding a request for TDIU moot where 100 percent schedular rating was awarded for the same period). A grant of a 100 percent disability rating does not always render the issue of TDIU moot. VA's duty to maximize a claimant's benefits includes consideration of whether the disabilities establish entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 250 (2011); see also Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 294 (2008). Specifically, SMC may be warranted if a veteran has a 100 percent disability rating for a single disability, and VA finds that TDIU is warranted based solely on the disabilities other than the disability that is rated at 100 percent. See Bradley, 22 Vet. App. at 294 (analyzing 38 U.S.C. § 1114); see also 75 Fed. Reg. 11,229-04 (Mar. 10, 2010) (withdrawing VAOPGCPREC 6-99). In this case, the Veteran does not have a single disability rated 100 percent disabling, but rather a 100 percent ("total") combined disability rating based on multiple disabilities; thus, there is no basis for assignment of SMC per 38 U.S.C. § 1114. Entitlement to a TDIU, however, is not moot. Turning to the evidence of record, in August 2014 knee and lower leg, muscle injuries, shoulder and arm, and back VA examinations, the Veteran reported knee pain that is constant and sharp with movement. The Veteran was found to have functional impairment to include less movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination and impaired ability to execute skilled movements, pain on movement, swelling, deformity, atrophy of disuse, disturbance of locomotion, and interference with sitting. The Veteran's leg condition was also found to impair his ability to sit, drive, or walk for more than one hour. Regarding employment, he reported that was the plant manager of a factory but could come off the factory floor to sit and rest. In an October 2014 hip and thigh VA examination, the Veteran was found to have pain and weakness, which could significantly impair function or activity during flareups. In a December 2014 peripheral nerves VA examination, the Veteran was also not found to have motor strength deficits. In March 2014 the Veteran submitted a buddy statement that describes the Veteran's chronic pain and in his June 2017 VA Form 9, the Veteran asserted that he has decreased mobility due to his disabilities and needs help getting up and with walking. In a September 2018 knee and lower leg, hip and thigh, the Veteran reported being shaky and unable to walk his dog. In addition, going up and down stairs was painful. He was found to have lost zero to one week of work in the last 12 months and had difficulty walking, sitting, and standing. In a September 2018 psychiatric disorder VA examination, the reported that he was employed full time as a plant manager and was planning to retire at the beginning of 2019. He was retiring because the store was closing, and he was going to help them close the store. He was worried about retirement because he was unsure how to fill his time. He had a successful career and denied having any occupational concerns. He did struggle at work due to concentration problems. He had good friends and family relationships. On examination his symptoms included depressed mood and anxiety. In a January 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his gait was affected by his knee. He continued with his job out of necessity and retired/was laid off when he was unable to travel for his employment. In a September 2020 VA examination, in reviewing solely the back condition, an examiner asserted that the Veteran's arthritis would limit him from excessive bending, twisting, and heavy lifting. Veteran does have increased stress on back from walking so he should be limited to minimal light walking. Following a review of the record in its entirety and the applicable legal criteria, for the reasons detailed below, the Board finds that the Veteran has not been shown to be unable to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment. Specifically, the Board does not find that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities (either alone, or in combination) render him unable to obtain or maintain substantially gainful employment. While various VA examiners have expressed that the Veteran has limitations and functional impairment that affect his employment, the evidence, as it currently stands, does not show that the Veteran is precluded from obtain or maintaining gainful employment, or that he would only be able to work in a protected work environment. Specifically, although the Veteran has contended that he experienced pain, needed to take breaks, and only continued his employment out of necessity, as a whole, the evidence shows that up until at least 2019, the Veteran has been shown to have been working. See September 2018 VA Examination. Regarding whether the Veteran's employment during the appeal period was gainful or in a protective environment, as previously discussed, the Veteran has not provided any further information regarding his income, employment, education history, or training for the period on appeal. Based on the unavailability of a more detailed accounting of the Veteran's income during the period on appeal, the Board cannot confirm whether the Veteran's salary was below the poverty threshold established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that the Veteran's employment was "protected" such that he was working, for example, for a family business or sheltered workshop, or of a specific retirement date. Regarding the Veteran's assertions that he is retired, the Veteran's failure to provide a complete employment history and to identify previous employers deprives the Board of information as to the Veteran's complete work history, skills, training, and income information necessary to address a claim for TDIU. The Board acknowledges that the appellant is, and the Veteran was, competent to report the symptoms the Veteran experienced from his service-connected disabilities and that such statements are credible. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, he is not competent to identify a specific level of disability according to the appropriate Diagnostic Code or to assess whether the symptoms preclude employment. Such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran's service-connected disability, and in particular his ability to work, has been provided by medical professionals who have examined him throughout the appeal period. See, e.g. May 2010 VA Examination; see also Cartwright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991). Accordingly, the Board affords significant probative weight to the medical evidence of record. The Board also does not in any way disagree that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities limited his employability. The Board believes, however, that the symptomatology associated with such disabilities is appropriately compensated via the combined ratings currently in effect. Indeed, loss of industrial capacity is the principal factor in assigning schedular disability ratings. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1. Section 4.1 states: "[g]enerally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability." See also Moyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 289, 293 (1992) and Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993) (noting that the disability rating itself is recognition that industrial capacities are impaired). (Continued on the next page) Based on the foregoing, the Board is unable to find that the Veteran cannot follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and there is no doubt to be resolved. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 4 9, 55 (1991). KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kaufer, 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.