Citation Nr: 21031760 Decision Date: 05/24/21 Archive Date: 05/24/21 DOCKET NO. 07-38 554 DATE: May 24, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not meet the schedular criteria for the award of TDIU. 2. At no time during the applicable time interval from April 28, 2006 until the time of his death in September 2018, did the Veteran's service-connected disabilities cause the Veteran to be incapable of obtaining or sustaining substantially gainful employment, with due consideration of his education and work experience. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b), 5110, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 3.340, 3.341, 3.340, 4.16. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1961 to December 1984. He died in September 2018. The appellant is his widow. This is a case of substitution, with the appellant standing in the place of the deceased Veteran and continuing his claim of entitlement to TDIU, for accrued benefits purposes. Because ratings for the Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not meet the schedular criteria for consideration of TDIU on a schedular basis, in a June 2018 decision the Board considered and denied TDIU on an extraschedular basis. 38 C.F.R.§§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16 (a). The Veteran appealed that decision, and by a November 2019 Order the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) approved a Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion) vacating the Board's decision and remanding for action consistent with the Joint Motion. Accordingly, in June 2020, the Board remanded the claim for additional development, and it now returns to the Board for further review. The parties to the Joint Motion found that the Board had failed to provide "sufficient context for understanding whether the Veteran was precluded from light/sedentary employment given the particular facts of his case," citing Withers v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 139, 148 (2018), and Pederson v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 276, 287 (2015) (en banc). The parties to the Joint Motion additionally found that the Board had failed to discuss a Social Security Administration (SSA) determination that the Veteran was disabled from working due to a primary diagnosis of degenerative disc disease. The parties to the Joint Motion additionally interpreted the Board's June 2018 decision as in effect basing its decision on the Veteran being unemployable due to both service-connected and non-service-connected conditions, rather than basing its decision on whether or not the Veteran was unemployable due solely to service-connected disabilities. Entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis A TDIU may be assigned where the combined schedular evaluation for service-connected disabilities is less than total and the disabled Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disability or disabilities, provided that, if there is only one such disability, the disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and if there are two or more 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. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16 (a). The central inquiry is whether service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability. Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524 (1993). Neither nonservice-connected disabilities nor advancing age may be considered in the determination. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). Consideration shall be given to the Veteran's level of education, special training, and previous work experience. Therefore, the Board must evaluate whether there are circumstances in the Veteran's case, apart from any non-service-connected conditions and advancing age, which would justify a TDIU rating. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341 (a), 4.16 (a), 4.19. Where the schedular percentage requirements for TDIU are not met, entitlement to benefits on an extraschedular basis may be considered, as it is the established policy of VA that all Veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b). The Board does not have the authority to assign an extraschedular TDIU in the first instance. Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1 (2001). In reaching a decision on this matter, the Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the claims file and has an obligation to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases supporting its decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (d)(1); Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). While the Board must review the entire record, it need not discuss each and every piece of evidence in exhaustive detail. The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). In this case, service connection was in effect for degenerative joint disease of the right shoulder (rated 20 percent disabling); degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine (rated 20 percent disabling); cervical degenerative disc disease (rated 10 percent disabling); and chronic otitis externa (rated 10 percent disabling). The Veteran did not meet the schedular requirements for TDIU, so the Board must determine whether he was entitled to benefits on an extraschedular basis for the rating interval in question from April 28, 2006 until his death in September 2018. Turning to the evidence of record, the Board notes that in an application for TDIU, submitted in September 2014, the Veteran indicated that he most recently worked as a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, a job he held from February 1996 to June 2005. With regard to educational attainment, the Veteran reported having completed two years of college, in addition to "various U.S. Navy schools." He reported that he stopped working for the Postal Service because of pain in his right shoulder, lumbar spine, and cervical spine. The Veteran notably reported in his VA TDIU claim submitted in September 2014 that he worked for the Post Office as a mail carrier and that he became too disabled to work in June of 2004, whereas he reported that he was employed with the Post Office from February 1986 to June 2005. The discrepancy between the date of last employment and the date he reports he became too disabled to work is not explained in the TDIU application. However, the Veteran did report that his occupation during his last year of employment was as a "limited duty letter carrier," without explaining the scope of such limited duties. In a statement submitted in June 2007, the Veteran contended that "the combined limitations of my shoulders, neck, and back caused me to retire from the postal service 3 years before I wished. I just couldn't do my job as a letter carrier any longer." However, a June 2005 private functional capacity evaluation was conducted by QTC Medical Services for Department of Labor Orthopedic Surgery Second Opinion Evaluation, to determine the Veteran's "ongoing residuals and work status related to the work injury of 12-31-02." The Veteran had filed a claim for "lumbar aggravation" on that date. A work injury was also noted in December 2004 which the Veteran reported resulted in significant cervical pain or upper extremity radicular symptoms. The Veteran also reported lumbar pains mostly in the lumbosacral area and thoracic muscle pain which he noted radiated up from the low back. He reported that the lumbar pain also expanded into the gluteal and posterior thighs, and was aggravated by repetitive bending, stooping, or prolonged sitting. He denied radicular symptoms into the lower extremities. The Veteran was noted to work in modified duty currently as an Express Mail carrier for the Post Office. The examiner concluded that the pain complaints were substantially supported by physical findings, and that the Veteran would have great difficulty with activities requiring bending, lifting, stooping, crawling, and climbing, as well as with prolonged standing and walking and prolonged sitting. The examiner assessed that the Veteran would have moderate difficulty with repeated use of arms and hands overhead, and little difficulty with repetitive use of his hands. The examiner assessed that the Veteran was not able to perform his regular duties as a letter carrier, but that he should continue working in his modified duty status, with recommended restrictions including 20 pounds infrequent lifting and 10 pounds frequent lifting, and limited bending and stooping. This June 2005 QTC evaluation reflects that the Veteran was capable of continuing his Post Office limited duty work as an Express Mail carrier, though not his prior regular duty work as a regular mail carrier. It is relevant that in the course of his VA TDIU and his SSA disability claims the Veteran failed to report his accommodated work as an Express Mail carrier for the Post Office with its reduced lifting requirements, instead reporting that he was simply a mail carrier. At a July 2006 back examination, the Veteran was noted to have no incapacity to perform activities of daily living, but the Veteran reported that his back bothered him with prolonged standing or walking. The Veteran denied neurological symptoms. Objectively, there was no tenderness to the back, and range of thoracolumbar motion was to 10 degrees extension, 90 degrees flexion, 30 degrees left and right flexion, and 30 degrees left and right rotation. The Veteran had no pain with these ranges of motion and there was no additional limitation of motion with repetitive use. Gait was normal, and there was no evidence of spasm or no abnormal spinal curvature. Straight leg raising was negative and no neurological symptoms were present in the lower extremities. Lumbosacral x-rays showed grade 1 spondylolisthesis at L4 and L5 and milder symptoms at L2 and L3, with degenerative changes at the lumbar facet joints. The examiner diagnosed low back pain due to degenerative disc disease. Contemporaneous treatment evaluations were substantially similar in their findings and assessments. In a July 2006 statement, J. R., an acquaintance of many years, informed that the Veteran was now "extremely limited due to his back pain" including in his ability to perform his "former routine work and pleasure." As an example, J.R. stated that the Veteran was very active when he was younger and was an avid fisherman, but that he now could not stand long to fish. The Veteran also submitted another very similar statement by B. R., another acquaintance, also dated in July 2006. The Board notes that these statements provide insufficient observational detail to provide substantial support for the claim of unemployability. A laypersons definition of "extremely limited" is highly variable. The Board notes that the Social Security Disability claim and administrative provisions are entirely different from those of VA, and Social Security determinations are not binding on the VA. See Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181, 187-88 (1992). However, the findings in of such decisions may certainly be relevant. The Veteran reported in support of his Social Security disability claim in 2005 that he worked for the Post Office as a mail carrier prior to his ceasing that work, stating, "I picked up mail from the main Post Office and drove around delivering mail." He informed that this involving walking for two hours per day and lifting 50 pounds, with frequently lifting 25 pounds. A residual functional capacity assessment was conducted in March 2006 to support the SSA disability determination. Partial credibility was assigned to the Veteran's statements based on finding that he was partially credible. The Veteran's primary disabling conditions were found to be his lumbar radiculopathy, shoulder impingement, and low back pain. The Veteran was found to be limited in reaching due to his left shoulder impingement. He was found to be unable to use a ladder/rope/scaffold due to his degenerative disc disease and lumbar radiculopathy. Medical records were reviewed showing that the Veteran had good range of motion in all distal joints, but that he had some decreased motion in the low back and pain in the low back as well as radiculopathy. The examiner concluded that the Veteran was able to stand or walk at least six hours in an eight-hour workday with normal breaks, to sit at least six hours in a normal workday with normal breaks, and to perform unlimited pushing or pulling. He was found to be able to lift 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently. The Veteran was found to be entitled to SSA disability benefits in significant part based on his self-report that he had worked as a mail carrier for the Post Office prior to his ceasing work and could no longer perform that work. He was thus found to be no longer able to perform this work substantially due to carrying limitations. However, this conclusion of incapacity was a false report by the Veteran because the Veteran was no longer a regular mail carrier toward the end of his career with the Post Office, but rather was assigned accommodated duties as an Express Mail carrier for an interval (apparently approximately a year) prior to his retirement. There is little indication, based on the residual functional capacity assessment in March 2006 to support the SSA determination, that the Veteran would not have been able to perform this less physically demanding work as an Express Mail carrier due to his service-connected disabilities, which are the only disabilities relevant to the Board's TDIU decision. Because the SSA disability determination was based substantially on an inaccurate premise as reported by the Veteran that he was a regular mail carrier when he was forced to stop working, rather than an accommodated mail carrier, its determination of disability is not probative. A medical opinion based on an inaccurate factual premise is not probative. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993); Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 107 (2012) (per curiam). Similarly, here the SSA disability determination based on a functional assessment based on an inaccurate factual premise is not probative. At a July 2011 VA examination to address a question of peripheral neuropathy associated with service-connected low back disability, the Veteran contended that he had lower back pain that radiated to the left side of the legs after standing more than 20 minutes or walking more than 10 minutes and that the pain would persist until he sat down. However, peripheral neurological examination was not found to produce significant findings, except for strength testing which was 4/5 in all extremities. No sensory or reflex impairment was found, and the Veteran was able to perform three repetitions of deep squats without difficulty. Straight leg raising was also negative. The Veteran expressed discomfort during maneuvering of thoracolumbar spine and range of motion was less than full, but physiological reaction was not present, and movement was noted to be limited by body mass. X rays revealed minimal disc narrowing at L4-L5. The examiner diagnosed degenerative arthritis of the spine with no functional limitation. The examiner added that there was "no objective evidence to sustain a neuropathy diagnosis." In an August 2014 letter, acquaintance K.L. wrote that the Veteran was unable to work in his previous capacity as Building and Grounds Manager for his Masonic organization due to his physical condition. In a September 2014 statement in support of the Veteran's TDIU claim, acquaintance F.S. reported that the Veteran had significant trouble with his back for years. F.S. reported that the Veteran's condition had worsened so much that he had become unemployable and required surgery, and also had trouble completing small tasks around the house. The Board has considered these submitted statements, but like the statements by acquaintances submitted in July 2006, these appear highly subjective. They also fail to specify what disabilities were perceived to be causing the Veteran impairment or were perceived to render him unemployable. They are thus too vague and conclusory in nature, and absent sufficient detail upon which to base a weighing of these statements against other evidence, the Board does not afford them significant weight in its adjudication. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). In a September 2014 statement accompanying his formal application for TDIU, the Veteran wrote that while he was unable to perform the regular duties of a letter carrier, he was "constantly harassed" by management, "even to the point of being investigated by the inspection service." The Veteran wrote that as a result this mistreatment he "tucked tail and ran" as soon as he reached the age of 62. The Veteran also then wrote that he had back surgery in 2013, which did not help his back pain. He wrote that his back pain had worsened, and he required medication to sleep. In March 2016, the Veteran was afforded VA examinations to determine the level of severity of each of his service-connected disabilities, as well as the effect of his disabilities on his ability to function in an occupational environment. The Veteran reported that he cooked, cleaned the dishes, and did yard work like cutting the grass with a push mower (though he noted having to take breaks "because my hips hurt, and my back hurts some"). The Veteran also reported maintaining a woodworking hobby: "I build little toys, bowls, birdhouses." He also reported volunteer work with his Masonic organization. He reported walking daily, though at shorter distances. The examiner evaluated each of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities and determined that the Veteran was capable of "sedentary/light physical activities in an occupational environment if he so chooses," and noted that his current activities (woodworking, volunteering, etc.) reflected his ability to perform such activities. She concluded that the Veteran's disabilities likely did not prevent him from securing and following substantially gainful employment for which his education and occupational experience would otherwise qualify him. In January 2018, the Veteran's TDIU claim was referred to the Director, Compensation Service, for extraschedular consideration. In a February 2018 report, the Director of Compensation Service determined that based on the totality of the evidence of record, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not warrant entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis. In reaching this conclusion, the Director noted that the SSA found the Veteran to be entitled to disability benefits as a result of degenerative disc disease and lumbar radiculopathy. The Director noted past medical treatment for a number of different disabilities in addition to those for which he is service-connected, including sleep apnea, kidney disease, morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension, obstructive lung disease coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, left shoulder impingement syndrome, and pains in the hand, knee, foot, and hip. Overall, the Director found that the medical evidence as a whole showed that physical occupational activity was limited, but not impossible, and cited the March 2016 VA examiner's finding that light physical occupational activity was possible with no sedentary preclusion. Further, the Director noted that the Veteran's lay statements and SSA findings suggest that unemployability is due to in part to disabilities for which service connection has not been established rather than due to the Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone. The appellant through her representative obtained a vocational rehabilitation assessment by a vocational rehabilitation consultant, S.M., in January 2020, who interviewed the appellant for purposes of the report. S.M. provided an opinion that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities alone at least as likely as not rendered him incapable of securing and following substantially gainful employment, including sedentary employment, over the interval from April 2006 until his death in September 2018. To support her opinions, the consultant selectively quoted findings or statements within examination or treatment records, but these extracted quotes do not appear to adequately represent or to be supported by objective findings by examiners over the time interval in question. These quotes instead mostly reflect self-reports by the Veteran at various times without adequate consideration of more objective findings upon examinations or of circumstances in which these quoted statements were made. The report does not reflect that the consultant considered the possibility of exaggeration of symptoms or that the Veteran otherwise provided self-serving statements in support of his claims, or the possibility of other significant medical conditions impairing the Veteran's capacity for prolonged sitting, standing, walking, or other activities. The consultant contended that she "selected the most relevant records that describe his medical history and service-connected limitations," yet the report fails to reference or consider medical examiners' relevant objective findings, and this failure alone calls into question the validity of the consultant's findings and conclusions. Further, the consultant fails to recognize that the Veteran successfully retired from not one but two careers, retiring after over twenty years in the Navy after rising in the ranks to positions of increasing skill, complexity, and professional accomplishment; and then retiring from a career with the Post Office. The consultant appears not to have adequately considered skills and experience gained over the course of the Veteran's long careers. As the VA examiner in March 2016 noted, the Veteran's career in service included positions of quality control technician, aviation electronics technician, line chief, maintenance control chief, and maintenance chief. The consultant instead questionably dwells on the Veteran's impaired capacities to reach and lift and those impairments' impact on his capacity to deliver mail. The consultant also relies on the suppositions that service-connected disabilities significantly impaired the Veteran's sleep and that this in turn led to significantly impaired cognitive functioning, including "difficulty maintaining concentration and completing multi-step tasks." She does so substantially based on her interview with the Veteran's surviving spouse, who informed, for example, that the Veteran would take naps during the day due to difficulty sleeping associated with pain from service-connected disabilities. The consultant thereby concludes that "chronic pain with associated fatigue also negatively impacts his ability to learn new skills due to impairments in concentration." These conclusions appear to be speculative and not supported by findings during the Veteran's lifetime or even by the Veteran's own statements during his lifetime. The Board does not find these statements to be well-supported by any medical correlation to the Veteran's service-connected disabilities. For example, the Veteran's spouse stated, "The pain interfered with his ability to complete even small tasks in his shop in the garage." This statement does not consider the Veteran's many other disabilities potentially interfering with sleep and his functioning and also causing pain, and also does not speak to a particular time interval. Was this only shortly prior to death, or at one particular time when the Veteran was having an acute pain exacerbation? The quotes of the Veteran's spouse certainly do not answer, and do not appear on their face to support a degree of impairment due to pain or associated sleep impairment and impaired mental functioning over any particular time interval, much less over the entire time period in question from 2006 to 2018. These quotes also do not appear to adequately link service-connected disabilities either to sleep impairment or to impaired mental functioning. Accordingly, the Board concludes that this consultant's provided opinions regarding the Veteran's mental capacities or capacities for sustained concentration and attention rely on highly speculative and inaccurate factual bases, and hence are not probative. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). The consultant added, "Medical professionals are qualified to define the physical or emotional limitations extending from a condition but have no expertise in translating this information into opining on whether this degree of restriction or limitation, or both prevents one from securing and maintaining substantially gainful employment." With this assessment the Board must also disagree and must question the expertise of this consultant in assessing the nature and severity and impact on work capacity of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities. An orthopedist may be expected to be entirely capable of assessing the severity of orthopedic disabilities such as the Veteran's service-connected right shoulder, neck, and low back disabilities - and their impact on a patient's capacity to perform work tasks. It is within the ambit of trained health care professionals to draw conclusions that require medical expertise, such as rendering opinions about diagnoses, causation, and impact on functioning. Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 134, 137 (1994). This consultant, in contrast, failed to demonstrate that she possesses such capacities despite her title, by failing to adequately address the actual physiological impairments associated with the service-connected right shoulder, neck, and low back disabilities, and failing to address how these physiological impairments would result in work incapacities. The consultant also attributed sleep impairment and resulting fatigue and reduced executive capacities to these physical conditions without bothering to address what other conditions may have impaired the Veteran's sleep or cognitive tasks or physical functioning, and without reviewing the actual medical records which might reflect whether or not the Veteran actually had significant impairments in physical capacities, sleep, or cognitive functioning during the considerable interval from April 2006 until the Veteran's death in September 2018 for which the consultant provides her blanket opinions. Her provided curriculum vitae informs that she would not be qualified to speak to the severity of the service-connected orthopedic disabilities and their impacts on functioning, since her advanced education is limited to a Master's of Arts in Rehabilitation Counseling and a Bachelor's of Arts in Sociology, and hence the focus of her education is in the social, emotional, and mental health realm, without professional qualification in medical sciences addressing physical disabilities. The consultant extracted limited quotes from past examinations, such as from September 2002 and November 2002 examinations in which it was noted that the right shoulder disability limited the Veteran's ability to reach and lift repetitively and so affected his capacity to perform his work as a letter carrier. She also observed that the November 2002 examiner noted that the Veteran had flare-ups of his neck and shoulder conditions which "may alter his strength, coordination, and range of motion." These descriptions of limitations provide no concrete assessments of impacts on work functioning beyond speculation as to capacities in reaching and lifting. The statement that something "may" affect functioning is too speculative to support the appellant's claim, since it is couched in terms of possibility rather than probability. See generally Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185 (1999) (a medical opinion based on speculation, without supporting clinical data or other rationale, does not provide the required degree of medical certainty). The consultant then lept to the insufficiently supported conclusion that the Veteran's right arm is useless for any forms of work due to his shoulder symptomatology: "Therefore, the Veteran's right shoulder condition at least as likely as not precluded his ability to utilize his dominant arm for frequent or repetitive activity as is required in even sedentary work, since at least April 2006 until his death in September 2018, due to symptoms of chronic pain, stiffness, weakness, and limited range of motion." The consultant drew this substantially unfounded conclusion without any explanation how a shoulder disability with impairments reaching and lifting repetitively, would preclude sedentary work at a desk such as using a computer, which would seemingly require essentially no reaching or lifting and hence would not tax the shoulder in this manner. In short, the consultant's arguments appear to be substantially factually unfounded and outcome-driven, jumping to conclusions in support of unemployability due to the shoulder disability for the entire time interval in question without a remotely adequate basis in the medical record. If the Veteran's own statements of capacity and functioning are to be used to assess the impact of service-connected disabilities on work capacity, as the consultant S.M. did, then the Veteran's own statement of his usual activities as quoted by the VA examiner in March 2016 assessing the impact of service-connected disabilities on work capacity should certainly have been considered. Yet the consultant failed to do so. Relevantly, the Veteran stated at this most recent VA examination prior to his death (as quoted by the March 2016 examiner), "My wife works; I cook and clean dishes. I do some yard work like cutting the grass w[ith a] push mower; I have to take breaks because my hips hurt, and back hurts some. After the stents in my legs, I don't have any calf pain any longer, but I have pain in both hips. I build little toys, bowls, birdhouses; wood working is my hobby. I volunteer for Free Masons. We raise funds to donate to organizations. I drive." By these statements we learn that while his low back caused some pain, the Veteran perceived his hips and not his back as the limiting factor in his capacity to use a push mower to mow the grass without stopping to rest. Using a push mower is a fairly vigorous physical activity, and this record does not reflect significant impairment from the Veteran's service-connected back, neck, or right shoulder disabilities or otitis externa if these did not impair such activity. We also learn that his peripheral vascular disease also limited his physical activity, and this was aided by stents placed in his legs. Such limitations due to peripheral vascular disease do not indicate limitations associated with his service-connected back or neck or shoulder disabilities or otitis externa. The Veteran's self-reported activities including doing dishes, yard work, wood craft, driving, and volunteering do not appear to reflect incapacity for substantially gainful activities. These activities including dishwashing, mowing with a push mower, and woodworking reflect that the Veteran uses his right arm for useful work and hence could do so for gainful activity, contrary to the conclusory statements of the consultant in the January 2020 report. His statements concerning volunteering for Free Masons, raising funds, building toys, and driving also appear to reflect substantially preserved mental and physical capacities to perform work-like activities. In November 2020, the Director, Compensation Service, provided another advisory opinion regarding for extraschedular consideration. The Director of Compensation Service reviewed all relevant evidence, including the January 2020 private vocational rehabilitation assessment. She determined that based on the cumulative evidence entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis was not warranted for the period April 28, 2006 to September 14, 2018. She noted that while there was evidence of record to show that physical occupational activities were limited, the VA examination reports and other evidence of record indicate the Veteran was capable of sedentary employment and light, physical occupational activities during the appeal period. In determining the weight to be assigned to evidence, credibility can be affected by inconsistent statements, internal inconsistency of statements, inconsistency with other evidence of record, facial implausibility, bad character, interest, bias, self- interest, malingering, desire for monetary gain, and witness demeanor. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511, 512 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d. 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Board here concludes that the January 2020 consultant's opinions appear to be inconsistent with other evidence of record and facially implausible. On these bases, the Board concludes that the consultant's findings and opinions are without credibility and hence entitled to no weight in the Board's adjudication. The Board concludes that the weight of the evidence is to the effect that the Veteran due to his service-connected low back, cervical spine, and right shoulder disabilities was substantially precluded from continuing his regular postal carrier work from April 2006 until his death in September 2018 due to low back pain limiting functioning, but that during this interval he was not precluded from performing work with accommodations, such as he was granted by the Post Office when he performed work as an Express Mail carrier rather than a regular mail carrier, with reduced weight carrying requirements. This is supported by the Veteran's own statements as well as by examinations and assessments of functional capacity as noted above. The Veteran would also not have been precluded from performing more sedentary activities such as seated clerical work at a Post Office or similar establishment, since the Veteran's hand functioning and mental capacities were not shown to be substantially impaired. The Veteran demonstrated ample learning and mental functional capacities both in and out of service, having completed two years of college and studies in Navy schools while in service and having performed in technical capacities to a high level of achievement in the military. Despite the Veteran's contentions of physical incapacities causing him to retire from the Post Office, a more accurate picture appears to be provided by the Veteran in the September 2014 statement in which he described being subjected to hostile management in the Post Office, which is reflective of dysfunction of his employer rather than his own incapacities. The Board has carefully reviewed the record and finds that the Veteran's capacities to perform substantially gainful work were not precluded by his service-connected disabilities at any time prior to his death. As demonstrated by the Veteran's own statements at his last VA examination in March 2016, the Veteran's capacities to perform many work or work-like activities were not precluded, with the Veteran reporting that he continued to perform activities demonstrating preserved capacities in both mental and physical functioning as may be equated with work functioning despite his retirement from two careers. His ample experience and expertise in a variety of areas both technical and professional also inform that he would not have been precluded from finding substantially gainful employment and retaining such employment between April 28, 2006 and the time of his death, even if potentially precluded from performing day-long tasks requiring significant physical activity due to his service-connected back or shoulder or neck disabilities or otitis externa, or even if precluded from tasks requiring significant lifting and reaching due to his right shoulder disability. On these bases, the Board concludes that the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran having been precluded from obtaining or maintaining substantially gainful employment solely due to his service-connected disabilities, with due consideration of his past education, training, and work experience and without consideration of age or non-service-connected disabilities, at any time between April 28, 2006 and the time of his death. Hence, entitlement to TDIU on an extraschedular basis is denied, and is denied for any and all intervals between April 28, 2006 and the time of death. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a), (b). Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Schechter 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.