Citation Nr: A25035706 Decision Date: 04/17/25 Archive Date: 04/17/25 DOCKET NO. 230414-338997 DATE: April 17, 2025 ORDER An initial 30 percent evaluation, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is granted. An initial 40 percent evaluation, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy of the right (major) upper extremity is granted. An initial 40 percent evaluation, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is granted. An initial 40 percent evaluation, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is granted. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity is denied. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity is denied. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity is denied. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) by reason of being housebound under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s)(1) on or after February 1, 2019, is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy more nearly approximates moderate incomplete paralysis, but not severe incomplete paralysis. 2. The Veteran's right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy more nearly approximates moderate incomplete paralysis, but not severe incomplete paralysis. 3. The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity has more nearly approximated moderately severe incomplete paralysis. 4. The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity has more nearly approximated moderately severe incomplete paralysis. 5. The Veteran filed a claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right and left upper and lower extremities on February 4, 2014. No earlier record constitutes a claim for service connection for those disabilities. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an initial 30 percent evaluation for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity, but no higher, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8613. 2. The criteria for an initial 40 percent evaluation for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity, but no higher, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8613. 3. The criteria for an initial 40 percent evaluation, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. 4. The criteria for an initial 40 percent evaluation, but no higher, for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. 5. The criteria for an effective date earlier than February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.151, 3.155, 3.160, 3.157, 3.400. 6. The criteria for an effective date earlier than February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.151, 3.155, 3.160, 3.157, 3.400. 7. The criteria for an effective date earlier than February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.151, 3.155, 3.160, 3.157, 3.400. 8. The criteria for an effective date earlier than February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.151, 3.155, 3.160, 3.157, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from December 1967 to December 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2022 rating decision. The Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 in April 2023 and elected to have a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2022 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, he may file a supplemental claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included with this decision. However, because the Board is remanding the issue of entitlement to TDIU and SMC, any evidence that the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2024. A transcript has been associated with the claims file. Law and Analysis Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the pre-decisional duty to notify or duty to assist with regard to the issues decided herein. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Increased Evaluation Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In considering the severity of a disability, it is essential to trace the medical history of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). While the regulations require review of the recorded history of a disability by the adjudicator to ensure a more accurate evaluation, the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over the current medical findings. Where the question for consideration is the propriety of the initial rating assigned, evaluation of the evidence since the effective date of the grant of service connection is required. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Where VA's adjudication of the claim for increase is lengthy and factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms which would warrant different ratings, different or "staged" ratings may be assigned for such different periods of time. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (benefit-of-the-doubt rule not for application when evidence persuasively favors one side or the other). The Board has reviewed the record. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that all of the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000); Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (the Board is presumed to have considered all evidence presented in the record and is therefore not required to specifically discuss every piece of evidence). Right and Left Upper Extremities The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the right and left upper extremities are currently assigned separate 20 percent evaluation, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8613. Under Diagnostic Code 8613, 20 percent evaluation is assigned for mild incomplete paralysis of all radicular groups of the major or minor upper extremities. A 40 percent evaluation is warranted for moderate incomplete paralysis of all radicular groups of the major extremity, and a 30 percent evaluation is assigned for moderate incomplete paralysis of all radicular groups of the minor extremity. Severe incomplete paralysis of all radicular groups of the major extremity warrants a 70 percent evaluation, and a 60 percent evaluation is contemplated for severe incomplete paralysis of all radicular groups of the minor extremity. A maximum 90 percent evaluation is assigned for complete paralysis of all radicular groups of the major extremity, and an 80 percent evaluation is warranted for complete paralysis of all radicular groups of the minor extremity. Handedness for the purpose of a dominant rating will be determined by the evidence of record, or by testing on VA examination. Only one hand shall be considered dominant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.69. In this case, the evidence shows that the Veteran is right hand dominant. Thus, for rating purposes, the Veteran's left upper extremity will be considered the minor extremity and his right upper extremity will be considered the major extremity. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, disability from neurological disorders is rated from 10 to 100 percent in proportion to the impairment of motor, sensory, or mental function. With partial loss of use of one or more extremities from neurological lesions, the rating is to be by comparison with mild, moderate, severe, or complete paralysis of the peripheral nerves. The term "incomplete paralysis," with respect to peripheral nerve injuries, indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type pictured for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the lesion or to partial regeneration. Where the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating should be for mild, or at most, the moderate degree. The ratings for peripheral nerves are for unilateral involvement and are combined with application of the bilateral factor for bilateral involvement. Neuritis, cranial or peripheral, characterized by loss of reflexes, muscle atrophy, sensory disturbances, and constant pain, at times excruciating, is to be rated on the scale provided for injury of the nerve involved, with a maximum equal to severe, incomplete paralysis. The maximum rating to be assigned for neuritis not characterized by organic changes referred to in this section will be that for moderate incomplete paralysis, or with sciatic nerve involvement, for moderately severe incomplete paralysis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.123. Neuralgia, cranial or peripheral, characterized usually by a dull and intermittent pain, of typical distribution so as to identify the nerve, can receive a maximum rating of moderate incomplete paralysis, except for tic douloureux or trifacial neuralgia, which may be rated up to complete paralysis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124. In rating peripheral nerve injuries and their residuals, attention should be given to the site and character of the injury, the relative impairment and motor function, trophic changes, or sensory disturbances. Special consideration should be given to any psychotic manifestations, complete or partial loss of use of one or more extremities, speech disturbances, impairment of vision, disturbances of gait, tremors, visceral manifestations, and injury to the skull. 38 C.F.R. § 4.120. The words "mild," "moderate," and "severe" as used in the various diagnostic codes are not defined in the VA Rating Schedule. Therefore, the Board finds it appropriate to utilize definitions provided by a general-purpose dictionary. Terry v. Principi, 340 F.3d 1378, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (in the absence of an express definition, words are given their ordinary meaning). Mild is generally defined as not being or involving what is extreme or not severe. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 787 (11th ed. 2003). Moderate is generally defined as tending toward the mean or average amount. Id. at 798. Severe is generally defined as of a great degree or serious. Id. at 1140. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to increased evaluations for his service-connected peripheral neuropathy of the right and left upper extremities. A February 2022 VA examiner noted that the Veteran was not receiving any treatment for the disability, but his current symptoms consisted of pain, numbness and tingling of the hands. Specifically, they were described as moderate constant pain of the right and left upper extremities, severe intermittent pain of the right and left upper extremities, moderate paresthesias and/or dysesthesias of the right and left upper extremities, and moderate numbness of the right and left upper extremities. The Veteran's muscle strength was normal (5/5) bilaterally, and there was no muscle atrophy. His deep tendon reflexes were also normal (2+). Light touch/monofilament testing was decreased for the hands and fingers, but position sense and vibration sensation testing was normal for the right and left upper extremities. The examiner also indicated that the Veteran's functional impact consisted of difficulty handling items, driving, and shifting gears. There were no other pertinent physical findings or symptoms. The examiner concluded that the Veteran has moderate upper extremity sensory neuropathy with moderate incomplete paralysis of the bilateral upper extremities affecting the radial nerve, median nerve, and ulnar nerve. During the December 2024 hearing, the Veteran also testified that he has pain and swelling in his upper extremities, which is worse on his right side, and that he has difficulty carrying things and drops items. Notably, the February 2022 VA examiner found that the Veteran has moderate upper extremity sensory neuropathy with moderate incomplete paralysis of the bilateral upper extremities affecting the radial nerve, median nerve, and ulnar nerve. Therefore, the Board concludes that he is entitled to a 30 percent evaluation for his peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity (minor) and a 40 percent evaluation for his peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity (major) under Diagnostic Code 8613. The Board has also considered whether higher evaluations are warranted. However, the evidence does not show that the Veteran has severe incomplete paralysis or complete paralysis. As previously noted, the evidence has documented normal muscle strength for the upper extremities. Sensory testing revealed decreased light touch testing for the hands and fingers, but was otherwise normal. The February 2022 VA examiner also noted that his reflexes were normal and that there was no muscle atrophy. Where the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating should be for mild, or at the most, moderate symptomatology. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the evidence persuasively weighs against entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for the left upper extremity and in excess of 40 percent for the right upper extremity. Lower Extremities The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the left and right lower extremities is currently assigned separate 20 percent evaluations pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. Under Diagnostic Code 8520, a 10 percent evaluation is assigned for mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve, and a 20 percent evaluation is warranted for moderate incomplete paralysis. A 40 percent evaluation is contemplated for moderately severe incomplete paralysis, and a 60 percent evaluation is warranted for severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy. With complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve, which warrants an 80 percent rating, the foot dangles and drops, there is no active movement possible of the muscles below the knee, and flexion of the knee is weakened or (very rarely) lost. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, disability from neurological disorders is rated from 10 to 100 percent in proportion to the impairment of motor, sensory, or mental function. With partial loss of use of one or more extremities from neurological lesions, the rating is to be by comparison with mild, moderate, severe, or complete paralysis of the peripheral nerves. The term "incomplete paralysis," with respect to peripheral nerve injuries, indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type pictured for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the lesion or to partial regeneration. Where the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating should be for mild, or at most, the moderate degree. The ratings for peripheral nerves are for unilateral involvement and are combined with application of the bilateral factor for bilateral involvement. Neuritis, cranial or peripheral, characterized by loss of reflexes, muscle atrophy, sensory disturbances, and constant pain, at times excruciating, is to be rated on the scale provided for injury of the nerve involved, with a maximum equal to severe, incomplete paralysis. The maximum rating to be assigned for neuritis not characterized by organic changes referred to in this section will be that for moderate incomplete paralysis, or with sciatic nerve involvement, for moderately severe incomplete paralysis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.123. Neuralgia, cranial or peripheral, characterized usually by a dull and intermittent pain, of typical distribution so as to identify the nerve, can receive a maximum rating of moderate incomplete paralysis, except for tic douloureux or trifacial neuralgia, which may be rated up to complete paralysis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124. In rating peripheral nerve injuries and their residuals, attention should be given to the site and character of the injury, the relative impairment and motor function, trophic changes, or sensory disturbances. Special consideration should be given to any psychotic manifestations, complete or partial loss of use of one or more extremities, speech disturbances, impairment of vision, disturbances of gait, tremors, visceral manifestations, and injury to the skull. 38 C.F.R. § 4.120. The words "mild," "moderate," and "severe" as used in the various diagnostic codes are not defined in the VA Rating Schedule. Therefore, the Board finds it appropriate to utilize definitions provided by a general-purpose dictionary. Terry v. Principi, 340 F.3d 1378, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (in the absence of an express definition, words are given their ordinary meaning). Mild is generally defined as not being or involving what is extreme or not severe. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 787 (11th ed. 2003). Moderate is generally defined as tending toward the mean or average amount. Id. at 798. Severe is generally defined as of a great degree or serious. Id. at 1140. Thus, moderately severe, by extension, lies somewhere in the middle of these definitions. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to separate 40 percent evaluations for his left and right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. During a February 2022 VA examination, the Veteran reported having pain, numbness and tingling of the hands and feet. In particular, it was noted that he had moderate constant pain of the bilateral lower extremities, severe intermittent pain of the bilateral lower extremities, moderate paresthesias and/or dysesthesias of the bilateral lower extremities, and moderate numbness of the bilateral lower extremities. A physical examination revealed normal strength (5/5) without muscle atrophy. The Veteran's deep tendon reflexes were decreased, 1+ for both ankles, but were but otherwise normal. Testing also revealed decreased light touch/monofilament testing for the right and left ankles and lower legs and right and left feet and toes, and vibration sensation was decreased for both lower extremities. It was also noted that there were trophic changes, which were described as loss of hair and thinning skin. The examiner indicated that the functional impact consisted of difficulty with balance and with driving and braking. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, or symptoms. The examiner concluded that the Veteran has moderate lower extremity sensory neuropathy with moderately severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve on both sides. During the February 2024 hearing, the Veteran testified that he has pain, weakness and swelling in his lower extremities, which are worse on his right side. He also described difficulty walking and stairs and balance problems, and he stated that he had hair loss on his legs. Based on the foregoing and resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively shows that he has more nearly approximates moderately severe incomplete paralysis in both lower extremities. Notably, he has had decreased reflexes and sensation in his lower extremities, and there was evidence of trophic changes during the February 2022 VA examination, as the Veteran had described during the December 2024 hearing. The examiner also found that he had moderately severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerves. Therefore, the Board concludes that separate 40 percent evaluations are warranted for both lower extremities. The Board has also considered whether the Veteran is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent at any time during the appeal period. However, the evidence does not show that he has had severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy or complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve where the foot dangles and drops, there is no active movement possible of the muscles below the knee, and flexion of the knee is weakened or (very rarely) lost. Indeed, the February 2022 VA examiner indicated that there was no muscle atrophy or complete paralysis, and the Veteran testified during the December 2024 hearing that he is able to flex his knees despite having some limitation and does not have foot drop. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the evidence persuasively weighs against entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent. Earlier Effective Date Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). The effective date for an award of service connection is the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose, if the claim is received within one year after separation from service; otherwise, the effective date is the later of the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement to service connection arose. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). Effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to require that all claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations be filed on a standard form. The amendments implement the concept of an intent to file a claim for benefits, which operates similarly to the informal claim process, but requires that the submission establishing a claimant's effective date of benefits must be received in one of three specified formats. The amendments also eliminate the constructive receipt of VA reports of hospitalization or examination and other medical records as informal claims to reopen under 38 C.F.R. § 3.157. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014) (now codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.151, 3.155). The amendments apply only to claims filed on or after March 24, 2015. Under the former regulations prior to March 24, 2015, a specific claim in the form prescribed by VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). The term "claim" or "application" means 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). Any communication or action indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA from a claimant may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the benefit sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. 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). A "pending claim" is defined as an application, formal or informal, which has not been finally adjudicated. 38 C.F.R. § 3.160(c). In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to an effective date prior to February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left and right upper and lower extremities. The Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-526EZ on February 4, 2014, in which he included a claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the legs and hands secondary to diabetes mellitus due to Agent Orange. The record does not contain any communication or correspondence prior to February 4, 2014, indicating an intent to file a service connection claim for peripheral neuropathy of the right and left upper and lower extremities. VA is obligated to consider all possible bases for compensation; however, this does not mean that it is required to anticipate any potential claim for a particular benefit where no intention to raise it was expressed. See Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 35 (1998) (holding that before VA can adjudicate a claim for benefits, "the claimant must submit a written document identifying the benefit and expressing some intent to seek it"); see also Talbert v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 352, 356-57 (1995). Moreover, the Board notes that peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower and upper extremities was granted as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected type II diabetes mellitus, which also has an effective date of February 14, 2014. See February 2014 claim; February 2022 VA examination report; March 2022 rating decision; April 14, 2025, Board decision. The effective date of awards of claims granted on a secondary basis can be no earlier than the date of the claim for compensation on a secondary basis. Ellington v. Nicholson, 22 Vet. App. 141, 145 (2007) (finding that the effective date for a grant of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II and hypertension as secondary to leukemia was the date of the claim for secondary service connection, not the date of claim of service connection for leukemia), aff'd sub nom Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364. Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that a claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower and upper extremities was not received prior to February 4, 2014. Accordingly, an effective date prior to February 4, 2014, for the grant of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower and upper extremities is not warranted. As the persuasive weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND During the pendency of the appeal, the Veteran and his representative asserted that he is unable to work at least in part due to his service-connected peripheral neuropathy. In Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447(2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that a claim for TDIU is part and parcel of an increased rating claim when such a claim is raised by the record. Prior to the March 2022 rating decision on appeal, a February 2022 VA examiner indicated that his peripheral neuropathy had impacted his ability to work as a truck driver because he had difficulty handling items, braking, and shifting gears. Therefore, the Board finds that the AOJ should have developed and adjudicated a claim for TDIU. Moreover, the Board finds that the issue of entitlement to SMC is inextricably intertwined with the TDIU issue, as the Veteran does not currently have a single service-connected disability rated 100 percent disabling. See Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242 (2011); Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: The AOJ should develop and consider whether the Veteran is entitled to TDIU based on impairment attributable to his service-connected disabilities, in accordance with Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D.S. Chilcote 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.