the appellant does not argue that a medical provider has indicated that his diabetes is of such severity that he should curtail his activities such as to avoid strenuous activity. The appellant does not refute the Secretary’s argument that there is none. On the contrary, there is evidence that the appellant was being encouraged to be more physically active, such as the March 2004 VAMC progress notes that advised the appellant to exercise 6-7 days per week. R. at 120. At that time, the appellant had informed the physician that he exercises approximately 3 days per week. The physician was, therefore, advising the appellant to increase his weekly exercise program. Hence, the record contradicts any a uing “and” as conjunctive in a statute); cf. Johnson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 95, 97 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Given the clearly conjunctive structure of
holding that or in the rating criteria shows that each is an independent basis for granting that rating holding that an order granting a new trial in a civil action is appealable holding that because the order lacked an independent basis it was an abuse of discretion to issue the mutual restraining order holding that each subcategory of ineffective assistance of counsel is an independent claim that must be sufficiently plead holding that where there is evidence sufficient to sustain finding of trial court that prejudicial error was contained in record there is no basis for stating that trial court abused discretion in granting new trial