INFECTIONS OF THE SKIN NOT LISTED ELSEWHERE

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from June 1979 to July 1982, appeals the denial of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) and seeks an increased disability rating for bilateral plantar warts. The Board granted an increased rating for the plantar warts, finding them analogous to painful scars under DC 7804 and awarding a 30 percent disability rating. The Board found the April 2018 VA treatment note most probative, noting at least five painful plantar warts, and determined this warranted the 30 percent rating, replacing the prior 20 percent rating. The Board found the Veteran competent to report his symptoms and that the plantar warts caused pain and some functional limitation, but not to the extent of precluding substantially gainful employment. The Board considered the Veteran's work history, education, and vocational training, noting he had a GED and training in HVAC and forklift operation, with work experience as an infantryman, cook, landscaping supervisor, and handyman. Despite the Veteran's assertions of pain limiting his ability to stand and walk, the Board found the evidence did not support an inability to secure or follow substantially gainful employment. The Board noted the Veteran's ability to walk with orthotics, use a cane occasionally, and engage in activities like biking and walking for exercise. The Board denied the TDIU claim, concluding the service-connected plantar warts did not preclude substantially gainful employment consistent with his background.

Rationale

Evidence persuasively weighs in favor of 30 percent rating.; Plantar warts analogous to painful scars under DC 7804.; At least five painful plantar warts present.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26031282
Decision Date: 04/06/26	Archive Date: 04/06/26

DOCKET NO. 210317-148183
DATE: April 6, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to a 30 percent disability rating, but no higher, for bilateral plantar warts, under Diagnostic Code (DC) 7820-7804, is granted.

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to a service-connected disability is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The evidence of record persuasively weighs in favor of finding the Veteran had no less than five plantar warts on his feet during the review period, a condition of which is analogous to the presence of painful scars under DC 7804.

The evidence persuasively weighs against finding the Veteran's service-connected bilateral plantar warts, the only service-connected disability he has been awarded, prevented him from securing or following substantially gainful employment during the review period.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The criteria for a 30 percent rating, but no higher, for bilateral plantar warts have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.20, 4.71a, DC 5284, 4.118, DCs 7804, 7820.

The criteria for a TDIU rating have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.341, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1979 to July 1982.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2021 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office, which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

The Veteran elected the Board's Hearing docket. See March 2021 VA Form 10182. Unable to connect to the scheduled September 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran waived his right to a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). See September 2024 VA Form 27-0820; December 2024 Appellate Brief (entitled VA Form 21-0960P-3). This restricts the Board's review to the evidence of record at the time of the rating decision on appeal and any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his attorney within 90 days following the waiver. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b).

The Board notes that evidence was associated with the claims file during a period that is outside the applicable evidentiary windows - between the rating decision on appeal and the September 2024 waiver and more than 90 days following the waiver. Therefore, the Board has not considered this evidence in its present decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300(a). 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider the additional evidence that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a supplemental claim (VA Form 20-0995) and identify the evidence that the AOJ should consider. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included following this decision.

As a final preliminary matter, the Board finds that the issue of entitlement to a TDIU rating to be part and parcel with the Veteran's claim for a higher rating for the bilateral plantar warts addressed herein below. Thus, a claim for a TDIU rating has been added to this appeal. Phillips v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 394 (2024) (a TDIU rating "is not a separate claim but an attempt to be rated correctly for a disability.").

Increased Rating

Disability evaluations are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects the veteran's ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing the veteran's symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Generally, the degree of disabilities specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbation or illness proportionate to the severity of
Disability evaluations are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects the veteran's ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing the veteran's symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Generally, the degree of disabilities specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbation or illness proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. Id. The basis of disability ratings is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body, to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10.

In general, VA rates unlisted conditions under a closely related disease or injury consistent with the functions affected, anatomical localization, and symptomatology. 38 C.F.R. § 4.20.

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 required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. "Staged ratings" are, however, appropriate for an increased rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

The evaluation of the same disability under several DCs, known as "pyramiding," must be avoided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. However, separate ratings may be assigned for distinct disabilities resulting from the same injury, so long as the symptomatology for one condition is not duplicative of or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition. Id.

For non-initial increase rating claims, the effective date of an award of increased compensation shall be the earliest date as of which it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if the claim is received within one year from such date; otherwise, it shall be the date of receipt of the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2).

The veteran will be afforded the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination, but such rule is not applicable if the evidence persuasively favors one side. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Entitlement to a 30 percent disability rating, but no higher, for bilateral plantar warts, under Diagnostic Code (DC) 7820-7804, is granted.

The review period in this matter begins in November 2019 (to include the one-year "look back" from the date VA received the Veteran's intent to file). 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o). The evidence before the Board includes the evidence in the claims file at the time of the March 2021 rating decision, the evidence received from the Veteran and/or is attorney with or within 90 days of the hearing waiver (which includes the appellate brief with the Veteran's assertions outlined), and the VA medical records constructively received at the time of the rating decision on appeal.

The claims file shows that a November 2006 rating decision awarded service connection for bilateral plantar warts and assigned a 20 percent rating under DC 7820-5284 with an effective date of March 14, 2006 (the day VA received the Veteran's claim). 38 C.F.R. § 4.71(a).

Skin conditions are generally evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118; 67 Fed. Reg. 49596 (July 31, 2002); 67 Fed. Reg. 58448 (Sept. 16, 2002); 73 Fed. Reg. 54710 (Oct. 23, 2008); 77 Fed. Reg. 2910 (Jan. 
arts and assigned a 20 percent rating under DC 7820-5284 with an effective date of March 14, 2006 (the day VA received the Veteran's claim). 38 C.F.R. § 4.71(a).

Skin conditions are generally evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118; 67 Fed. Reg. 49596 (July 31, 2002); 67 Fed. Reg. 58448 (Sept. 16, 2002); 73 Fed. Reg. 54710 (Oct. 23, 2008); 77 Fed. Reg. 2910 (Jan. 20, 2012); 83 Fed. Reg. 32597 (July 13, 2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 38663 (Aug. 7, 2018). Because VA has not specifically listed plantar warts (calluses), the Board considered the listed disabilities and finds the Veteran's service-connected condition and symptoms to be most analogous with "Infections of the skin not listed elsewhere" under DC 7820.

For infections of the skin not otherwise identified, DC 7820 directs the rating official to evaluate the disability under the General Rating Formula for the Skin. Id. The General Rating Formula states that a noncompensable rating (zero percent) is assigned when there is evidence that the claimant has used on a topical therapy over the past 12-month period and at least one of the following: 1) characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of the entire body affected, or 2) characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of exposed areas affected. A 10 percent rating is assigned when there is evidence of at least one of the following: 1) characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent but less than 20 percent of the entire body affected; 2) characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent but less than 20 percent of exposed areas affected; or 3) the claimant has used intermittent systemic therapy for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over the past 12-month period. A 30 percent rating is assigned when there is evidence of at least one of the following: a) characteristic lesions involving 20 to 40 percent of the entire body affected; b) characteristic lesions involving 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or c) the claimant has used systemic therapy for a total duration of 6 weeks or more, but not constantly, over the past 12-month period. A 60 percent rating is assigned when there is evidence of at least one of the following: a) characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of the entire body affected; b) characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or c) the claimant has used constant or near-constant systemic therapy over the past 12-month period.

Alternatively, the listing permits the rating official to evaluate the disability as a disfigurement of the head, face, or neck under DC 7800 or as a scar(s) under DCs 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805 depending upon the predominant disability. Id.

DC 7801 evaluates deep and nonlinear burn scars and scars due to other causes that are not of the head, face, or neck that are associated with underlying soft tissue damage. Id. A 10 percent rating is warranted for a scar(s) with an area or areas greater than 6 in2 but less than 12 in2, or at least 39 cm2 but less than 77 cm2. A 20 percent rating is warranted for a scar(s) with an area or areas at least 12 in2 but less than 72 in2, or at least 77 cm2 but less than 465 cm2. A 30 percent rating is warranted for a scar(s) with an area or areas at least 72 in2 but less than 144 in2, or at least 465 cm2 but less than 929 cm2. A 40 percent rating is warranted for a scar(s) with an area or areas of 144 in2 or greater, or 929 cm2 or greater.

Note (1) clearly identifies six zones of the body - four extremities, the anterior trunk, and the posterior trunk - and that the anterior and posterior trunk are divided by the midaxillary line. Id. Note (2) allows the rating to be based on the higher of a combined rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.25 after separately evaluating each affected zone of the body or a rating based on the total area of the affected zones.

DC 7802 evaluates superficial and nonlinear burn scars and scars due to other causes that are not of the head, face,
40 percent rating is warranted for a scar(s) with an area or areas of 144 in2 or greater, or 929 cm2 or greater.

Note (1) clearly identifies six zones of the body - four extremities, the anterior trunk, and the posterior trunk - and that the anterior and posterior trunk are divided by the midaxillary line. Id. Note (2) allows the rating to be based on the higher of a combined rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.25 after separately evaluating each affected zone of the body or a rating based on the total area of the affected zones.

DC 7802 evaluates superficial and nonlinear burn scars and scars due to other causes that are not of the head, face, or neck that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage. Id. A 10 percent rating is warranted for a scar(s) with an area or areas of 144 in2 or greater, or 929 cm2 or greater. 

Note (1) to the DC again identifies the six separate zones and Note (2) addresses the ability to combine the ratings for the separate zones under 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. Id.

DC 7804 evaluates scars that are unstable and/or painful. Id. A 10 percent rating is warranted for 1 to 2 painful or unstable scars. A 20 percent rating is warranted for 3 to 4 painful or unstable scars. A 30 percent rating is warranted for 5 or more painful or unstable scars.

Note (1) defines an unstable scar as a scar where, for any reason, there is frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar. Id. Note (2) states that if any scar is both unstable and painful, a 10 percent rating is added to the evaluation based on the total number of scars. Note (3) clarifies a veteran is entitled to a rating under 7804 as well as DCs 7800, 7801, 7802, and 7805 for the same scar, i.e., ratings under these DCs will not result in pyramiding.

DC 7805 evaluates other effects of scars not addressed in DCs 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7804. The rating official is directed to evaluate additional disabling effects not considered in DCs 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7804 under an appropriate DC elsewhere in 38 C.F.R. § Part 4.

The Board acknowledges there is an additional DC for scars, DC 7800, but it is relevant only when the scar or disfigurement is present on the head, face, or neck. Thus, this decision will not discuss this DC any further.

After careful review of the probative evidence, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs in favor of awarding a 30 percent disability rating for the plantar warts as a disability analogous to scars.

The VA medical records show that the Veteran has reported issues with foot pain attributed to calluses on the plantar surface of his feet since at least 2002. 

An April 2018 podiatry treatment note shows the Veteran presented for callus debridement. He requested new orthotics. The clinical examination showed hyperkeratosis at the right 1st and 3rd plantar metatarsal heads, right 5th metatarsal base laterally, right heel, and left 1st and 5th plantar metatarsal heads, i.e., six separate calluses. There were no open lesions. The calluses were painful on palpation. There was no numbness, tingling, or burning.

The claims file shows that the Veteran was afforded VA examinations of his feet in September 2006, February 2011, and January 2012 with respect to his original application for service connection and subsequent requests for a higher disability rating. See September 2006, February 2011, & February 2012 VA Examinations. The September 2006 clinical examination showed, in part, that the Veteran had four plantar warts - one under the right 1st metatarsophalangeal joint, one under the head of the right fifth metatarsal at the base in the mid foot, one under the left first metatarsophalangeal joint, and one laterally on the head of the left fifth metatarsal. The February 2011 clinical examination also showed four "sites of hyperkeratosis" - two associated with the metatarsal heads, one over the heel, and a thickened area at the lateral aspect of the right mid foot. 

The January 2012 examination report shows that the Veteran was observed as having seven separate callus formations. Three were present on the left foot - 1.5cm x 1.5cm call
 the right 1st metatarsophalangeal joint, one under the head of the right fifth metatarsal at the base in the mid foot, one under the left first metatarsophalangeal joint, and one laterally on the head of the left fifth metatarsal. The February 2011 clinical examination also showed four "sites of hyperkeratosis" - two associated with the metatarsal heads, one over the heel, and a thickened area at the lateral aspect of the right mid foot. 

The January 2012 examination report shows that the Veteran was observed as having seven separate callus formations. Three were present on the left foot - 1.5cm x 1.5cm callus formations at the base of the left foot, base of the metatarsal bone area, and base of the fifth metatarsal bone area. Four were present on the right foot - a 2cm x 2cm callus along the mid-lateral right foot area, a 0.5cm x 0.5cm at the right heel area, a 0.5cm x 1.5cm at the base of the fifth metatarsal bone area, and a 1.5cm x 1.5cm at the base of the first metatarsal bone area. The calluses were tender to palpation.

The Veteran was afforded a VA foot conditions examination in February 2021. The diagnosis was bilateral plantar warts. He reportedly denied foot pain or that the plantar warts caused any functional loss. The examiner described the plantar warts as moderate in severity but required no arch supports, custom orthotic inserts, or shoe modifications. The clinical examination showed pain, which the examiner (inconsistently) stated contributed to functional loss. The examiner stated that the service-connected disability did not chronically compromise weight-bearing activities but also stated that there was evidence of pain during weight-bearing. The Veteran was not observed using an assistive device. The examiner opined that the service-connected disability did not result in an extreme functional impairment such that no effective function remained other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation with a prosthesis.

The Board finds the April 2018 VA treatment note to be the most probative evidence and gives it the greatest weight. Although more than a year prior to the beginning of the review period, this treatment note provides a detailed examination of the plantar warts at that time. The number of plantar warts is not necessarily inconsistent with evidence elsewhere in the claims file. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007).

The Board finds the September 2006, February 2011, and January 2012 VA examination reports of limited probative value and gives them limited weight. The Board considered the pertinent findings when considering the minimum number of plantar warts that were present at the time of these examinations. Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 304; Stefl, 21 Vet. App. at 124.

The Board finds the February 2021 VA examination report to be of limited probative value and gives it limited weight. Although the examiner was a qualified medical professional who conducted in-person examination, the examination report contains no description of the plantar warts. The examiner also provided inconsistent responses, of which the Board focused on the responses most favorable to the Veteran. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007).

Although the February 2021 examination report is incomplete, internally inconsistent at times, and does not provide a detailed description as to the number or size of the plantar warts at that time, the Board finds that a new examination would not avail the Veteran of a higher rating since the Board is awarding the highest schedular rating when considering the plantar warts to be analogous to painful scars. The evidence clearly supports the presence of no less than five separate plantar warts. The Board thus finds that the evidence currently in the record, which includes the Veteran's description of his symptoms, is adequate for adjudication. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.

The Veteran asserts that the bilateral plantar warts cause significant pain that interferes with ambulation. See December 2024 Appellate Brief; see also 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). He also
 when considering the plantar warts to be analogous to painful scars. The evidence clearly supports the presence of no less than five separate plantar warts. The Board thus finds that the evidence currently in the record, which includes the Veteran's description of his symptoms, is adequate for adjudication. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.

The Veteran asserts that the bilateral plantar warts cause significant pain that interferes with ambulation. See December 2024 Appellate Brief; see also 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). He also acknowledges the presence of no less than five plantar warts on his feet. The Board finds the Veteran competent to report observable findings and symptoms in general. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). 

Having considered the evidence in the claims file, including that summarized above, a 30 percent disability rating for the bilateral plantar warts under DC 7820-7804 is warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.118. Here, the evidence, including the Veteran's own statements, shows he has had at least five plantar warts dating back to the January 2012 VA examination. See February 2012 VA Examination; see generally CAPRI. The VA medical record, including the April 2018 treatment note, shows that the plantar warts have remained tender to palpation, i.e., painful.

Though the Veteran has reported shaving down the plantar warts and there is evidence that they have been professionally debrided at times, the evidence shows no problems related to instability of the covering as to any of the plantar warts or the surrounding skin surfaces to support an additional 10 percent rating in light of Note 2 for DC 7804. The collective area of the plantar warts have remained well below the area needed to support a rating in excess of 30 percent under the General Rating Formula or under DCs 7801 and/or 7802.

The Board has considered but finds no evidence that the bilateral plantar warts have resulted in other disabling effects that would warrant a rating under a separate DC, to include under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Specifically, there is no evidence that the plantar warts and/or pain has restricted the Veteran's range of motion in either foot, including the toes or ankle. Though the amount of time or distance the Veteran can ambulate for is limited due to foot pain, he has maintained the ability to ambulate with orthotics inserts and/or a cane.

Of note, the 30 percent disability rating under DC 7820-7804 granted herein replaces the currently assigned 20 percent rating under DC 7820-5284. Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532, 538 (1993). A separate rating based on DC 5284 is not appropriate here because this would result in compensating the Veteran for the same disability and symptomatology twice, which would violate VA's rule against pyramiding. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14.

The Board recognizes that VA may assign a rating greater than the maximum rating identified in 38 C.F.R. § Part 4, i.e., an extraschedular rating, in certain instances. Consideration of an extraschedular rating requires a three-step inquiry, the first of which considers whether the schedular rating criteria adequately contemplates the veteran's disability picture. If the Board believes that the schedular evaluation is inadequate because it does not contemplate the level of disability and symptomatology shown, then the second inquiry is whether the exceptional disability picture exhibits other related factors, such as a marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111, 115-16 (2008), aff'd sub nom.; Thun v. Shinseki, 572 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Anderson v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 423, 427 (2009). If the Veteran's disability picture meets the second inquiry, then the third step is for the Board to refer the matter to the Director of Compensation Services to determine whether an extraschedular rating is warranted in the first instance. Thun, 22 Vet. App. at 115-16.

The Board considers the definition of "marked" to include "having a distinctive or emphasized character." See
, 22 Vet. App. 111, 115-16 (2008), aff'd sub nom.; Thun v. Shinseki, 572 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Anderson v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 423, 427 (2009). If the Veteran's disability picture meets the second inquiry, then the third step is for the Board to refer the matter to the Director of Compensation Services to determine whether an extraschedular rating is warranted in the first instance. Thun, 22 Vet. App. at 115-16.

The Board considers the definition of "marked" to include "having a distinctive or emphasized character." See id., available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/marked.

The Board has considered the medical evidence, including that summarized above and below, and finds that the rating criteria adequately compensates the Veteran's disability picture. The Board does not find the plantar warts have interfered with the Veteran's ability to obtain and sustain employment. The rating criteria appears to adequately contemplate the Veteran's credible report of foot pain secondary to the service-connected plantar warts (and nonservice-connected disabilities).

For the reasons above, the evidence of record persuasively weighs in favor of granting a 30 percent disability rating, but no higher, for the bilateral plantar warts. The claim is granted to this extent.

TDIU

The regulations include rating schedules that guide the evaluation of disabilities related to diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentages represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such disease or injury and their residual conditions in civil occupations. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. In general, the criteria specified for a given rating is considered adequate to compensate the veteran for loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the disability. Id. 

It is the established policy of VA that all Veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of one or more service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled, i.e., compensated as though the combined rating for the service-connected disabilities are 100 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16. The evidence must show that the veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due solely to impairments resulting from one or more service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). A finding of total disability is appropriate "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(a)(1), 4.15; Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (A finding of 100 percent unemployability is not needed to grant entitlement to a TDIU rating).

A TDIU rating is to be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total (100 percent) but the evidence shows that the veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as the results of either (1) a single service-connected disability rated at 60 percent or more, or (2) two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is rated at 40 percent or more, and the combination of the disability ratings for the remaining service-connected disabilities is 70 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16.

VA treats the following disabilities as "one" disability when calculating the combined rating: (1) disabilities of one or both upper extremities, one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable; (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident; (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g., orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric; (4) multiple injuries incurred in action; or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a); Moody v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 329, 339 (2018) (combining disabilities as "one disability" to meet the rating threshold of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) requires the use of the combined rating table).

In determining whether a veteran is unemployable for VA purposes, an individualized determination specific to a veteran's particular circumstances must be made. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; Todd v
, neuropsychiatric; (4) multiple injuries incurred in action; or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a); Moody v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 329, 339 (2018) (combining disabilities as "one disability" to meet the rating threshold of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) requires the use of the combined rating table).

In determining whether a veteran is unemployable for VA purposes, an individualized determination specific to a veteran's particular circumstances must be made. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; Todd v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 79, 85 (2014). In Ray v. Wilkie, the Court directed the Board to consider the following factors: 

(1) the veteran's history, education, skill, and training; 

(2) whether the veteran has the physical ability (both exertional and nonexertional) to perform the type of activities (e.g., sedentary, light, medium, heavy, or very heavy) required by the occupation at issue. Factors that may be relevant include, but are not limited to, the veteran's limitations, if any, concerning lifting, bending, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, grasping, typing, and reaching, as well as auditory and visual limitations; and 

(3) whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue. Factors that may be relevant include, but are not limited to, the veteran's limitations, if any, concerning memory, concentration, ability to adapt to change, handle workplace stress, get along with coworkers, and demonstrate reliability and productivity. 

Ray, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019). "By discussing these potentially relevant factors, we don't create a checklist that must be run completely through in every case. Instead, discussion of any factor is only necessary if the evidence raises it." Id.

The veteran's age and any impairment solely related to nonservice-connected disability are not to be considered. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19; Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524 (1993) (the central inquiry in determining whether a veteran is entitled to a TDIU rating is whether the service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability).

The question of whether a veteran is capable of substantial gainful employment is not a medical one but rather a determination for the adjudicator, e.g., the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a); Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The sole fact that a veteran is unemployed or has had difficulty obtaining employment is not enough. The ultimate question is whether the veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment in light of the service-connected disabilities, not whether he or she can find employment. VanHoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993).

Moreover, a request for a TDIU rating is not a separate claim for benefits. In Rice v. Shinseki, the Court held that a claim for a TDIU rating is "part of the claim for benefits of the underlying disability" and can be raised explicitly or implied by the record. Rice, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). Once entitlement to a TDIU rating is raised in conjunction with a claim for a higher disability rating, the claimant need not specifically appeal the portion of the AOJ decision that denied the TDIU rating for the issue to remain in appellate status. Payne v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 373 (2019); Harper v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 356 (2018).

The veteran will be afforded the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination, but such rule is not applicable if the evidence persuasively favors one side. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7; Lynch, 21 F.4th at 781-82.

Entitlement to a TDIU rating is denied.

The review period in this matter begins in November 2019 (to include the one-year "look back" from the date VA received the Veteran's intent to file). 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o). The evidence
 will be afforded the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination, but such rule is not applicable if the evidence persuasively favors one side. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7; Lynch, 21 F.4th at 781-82.

Entitlement to a TDIU rating is denied.

The review period in this matter begins in November 2019 (to include the one-year "look back" from the date VA received the Veteran's intent to file). 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o). The evidence before the Board includes the evidence in the claims file at the time of the March 2021 rating decision, the evidence received from the Veteran and/or is attorney with or within 90 days of the hearing waiver (which includes the appellate brief with the Veteran's assertions outlined), and the VA medical records constructively received at the time of the rating decision on appeal.

The Board takes administrative notice that the June 2025 Rating Decision Codesheet shows that the Veteran's only service-connected disability is the bilateral plantar warts (initially rated at 20 percent as of March 14, 2006, and increased herein to 30 percent).

In light of Witkowski v. Collins, the Board finds no need to specifically discuss the schedular requirements for a TDIU rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Witkowski, 38 Vet. App. 459 (2025) (The Board may consider whether an extraschedular TDIU rating is warranted in the first instance, making the inquiry as to whether the schedular threshold requirement has been met superfluous).

Thus, the question before the Board is whether the Veteran has been unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation due to one or more of his service-connected disabilities since November 2019. The Board has considered all of the evidence in the claims file, including the medical and lay evidence, and concludes that the evidence weighs against finding the Veteran was not able to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation due to his service-connected bilateral plantar warts.

The Veteran has described his work history to include that of an infantryman (Army), cook/food service worker, landscaping supervisor, handyman/pipe fitter, and some assembly-type work. See, e.g., September 2006 & August 2011 Medical Treatment Records; April 2020 CAPRI; February 2021 C&P Exam. 

The Veteran confirmed receiving a GED (1982). See April 2020 CAPRI. He completed heating, venting, and cooling (HVAC) training and forklift training.

In the September 2006 VA examination report, the examiner provided no opinion about how the bilateral plantar warts might impact the Veteran's ability to work.

In the February 2011 VA examination report, the examiner provided no opinion about how the bilateral plantar warts might impact the Veteran's ability to work. The Veteran did report discomfort with standing, walking, as well as sitting.

In the January 2012 VA examination report, the examiner opined that "the 'calluses' do not interfere or prevent the veteran from performing activities consistent with his work experience and prior education for training" as a chef and cook. See February 2012 VA Examination. The Veteran was observed using a cane secondary to foot pain. He reported being able to walk two to three miles with medication if he has not been on his feet for a few days; he could only walk half a block otherwise. He cannot walk without medication.

In the February 2021 VA examination report, the examiner opined that the bilateral plantar warts imposed no work-related limitations. Elsewhere, the examiner (inconsistently) stated that the foot pain resulted in functional loss but did not elaborate.

Turning to the VA medical records, they show that, in December 2019, the Veteran reported "riding bikes and walking daily for exercise." See generally CAPRI. He was able to walk long distances "[m]ost of the time" and used a cane at times. In February 2020, he reported one activity he enjoyed was walking. Elsewhere in the treatment notes he reported walking occasionally to frequently and that he had no difficulty walking.

In March 2020, the Veteran attended a vocational rehabilitation assessment. See id. His vocational issue was described as "feet won't allow me to stand or walk for too long. Since 1992, I feel like ive been walking on nails and glass." His physical capabilities were identified as "[m]edium lifting restrictions" due to painful bone spurs. His strengths were good work habits/attendance, interpersonal skills, and good knowledge of work
RI. He was able to walk long distances "[m]ost of the time" and used a cane at times. In February 2020, he reported one activity he enjoyed was walking. Elsewhere in the treatment notes he reported walking occasionally to frequently and that he had no difficulty walking.

In March 2020, the Veteran attended a vocational rehabilitation assessment. See id. His vocational issue was described as "feet won't allow me to stand or walk for too long. Since 1992, I feel like ive been walking on nails and glass." His physical capabilities were identified as "[m]edium lifting restrictions" due to painful bone spurs. His strengths were good work habits/attendance, interpersonal skills, and good knowledge of work ethics. He needed improved computer skills, resume development, maintaining sobriety, and communication skills. His vocational preferences were housekeeping, food service, and supply.

The VA medical record shows that the Veteran was residing in a VA domiciliary building was provided various "passes" in 2020. See id. Some notes identify his mode of transportation to be "walk" while other notes show he was utilizing the bus and riding a bicycle.

The Board has considered the economic component of the TDIU analysis. There is no clear, competent evidence in the record that the Veteran has earned above the poverty threshold amounts for any of the relevant calendar years or, even if above the poverty threshold amounts, was performed outside a sheltered work environment. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the economic component is met.

Of note, the Board has considered whether the facts as to this appeal warrant a remand to direct the AOJ request the Veteran complete a VA Form 21-8940 so that the record contains a clear picture of the Veteran's work history and earnings since November 2019. However, in light of the current evidence, it is more likely than not that the Veteran's earnings have been less than the poverty threshold amounts for the applicable calendar years or that his work activities were performed in a shelter environment (family business). A remand would only result in an unnecessary delay. Moreover, if the Veteran disagrees with the Board's decision, he is free to file a supplemental claim within one-year of this decision for continuous pursuit purposes and provide such information. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c).

The Board has considered the non-economic components of the TDIU analysis. The Veteran reportedly earned a GED. See id. His work history includes work as an infantryman, food service/cook, landscape supervisor, pipe fitter, and non-specific temporary work on an assembly line. See id.; May 2014 DD 214; January 2012 VA Examination.

However, though it is reasonable that the Veteran's service-connected bilateral plantar warts have limited his functional abilities, the record does not show this disability has rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation during the review period. The Board has considered the Veteran's statements that the plantar warts limit his ability to stand, walk, and even sit. The Board finds that the Veteran is competent (qualified) to describe his symptoms and how his symptoms affected his functioning in general. However, his report of exertion-related limitations as to standing and walking in general are reasonably given clinical findings of pain/tenderness along the plantar aspects of his feet. The evidence, however, does not support an inability to stand or walk. For example, the treatment notes show he was residing in a VA domiciliary building and regularly provided passes to leave. See June 2025 CAPRI. He reported his modes of transportation included walking, riding a bicycle, and using public transportation. Though the plantar warts may have negatively impacted his ability to walk and stand for an extended period, the evidence does not show the plantar warts precluded all standing and walking activities. There is nothing in the record to support limitations related to sitting. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377; Kahana, 24 Vet. App. at 435. 

The Board has considered the February 2021 VA examination report but finds it of no probative value. The VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran had no work-related limitations appears to ignore the clinical findings - bilateral plantar foot tenderness - documented during the examination and elsewhere in the VA medical records. It is reasonable that the service-connected disabilities have imposed some degree of restriction as to the amount of time the Veteran has been able to be on his feet, i.e., stand and walk, during the review period. Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 304; Stefl, 21 Vet. App. at 124.

Although remote, the Board has considered the January 2012 VA examination report and finds it of limited probative value. Although the opinion was made more than seven
 of no probative value. The VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran had no work-related limitations appears to ignore the clinical findings - bilateral plantar foot tenderness - documented during the examination and elsewhere in the VA medical records. It is reasonable that the service-connected disabilities have imposed some degree of restriction as to the amount of time the Veteran has been able to be on his feet, i.e., stand and walk, during the review period. Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 304; Stefl, 21 Vet. App. at 124.

Although remote, the Board has considered the January 2012 VA examination report and finds it of limited probative value. Although the opinion was made more than seven years prior to the review period, the opinion that the Veteran could perform "activities consistent with his work experience and prior educational and training" does not appear to be inconsistent with the clinical findings and the Veteran's description about how long he could walk and stand at that time. The clinical findings leading up to and during the review period do not show the signs and symptoms related to the plantar warts have significantly progressed. The Board considered the opinion as evidence that the plantar warts impose limitations in general but have not precluded all standing and walking activities. Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 304; Stefl, 21 Vet. App. at 124.

The Board has also considered and finds the March 2020 vocational rehabilitation assessment of some probative value and gives it some weight. Here, the provider opined only that the Veteran could lift "medium" weights but did not provide a numerical value. The provider did not specifically address any other exertional or any non-exertional limitations. Regardless, the Board finds the opinion not inconsistent with limiting the Veteran to occupations performed primarily in the seated position that would require he lift no more than 10 pounds.

Based on the evidence in the claims, including but not limited to the evidence specifically discussed above, the Board finds that the Veteran has remained able to secure and/or follow gainful employment consistent with occupations primarily performed in the seated position that would require him lift and carry 10 pounds and push or press no more than 10 pounds of force. The evidence does not show the Veteran's service-connected disabilities have been of such degree that he would have been unable to perform occupations primarily completed in the seated position with standing or walking only on an occasional basis to address bilateral foot pain. Restricting him to lifting and carrying no more than 10 pounds would also limit the amount of additional weight placed on his feet to avoid exacerbating the foot pain. The amount of time spent in the seated position would also limit the number of postural demands, such as climbing stairs/heights, kneeling, and stooping, that could further exacerbate the foot pain symptoms.

Of note, the Board recognizes the definition of "occasional" includes "encountered, occurring, appearing, or taken at irregular or infrequent intervals." See Merriam-Webster Dictionary online, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occasional.

Of note, similar to age, the fact that the Veteran has a history of a felony conviction is not something the Board is permitted to consider when trying to determine if a TDIU rating is warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.18, 4.19.

Thus, the Board finds the Veteran's service-connected bilateral plantar warts have not preclude substantially gainful employment consistent with his educational background, occupational history, and training in general. The claim for a TDIU rating is denied.

 

 

J. Abrams

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. Burden, 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.