Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2000

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for a back disability and a heart disability are not well grounded.,However, his claim for an increased rating for malaria is well grounded.

The Board has granted service connection for a low back disability as secondary to the veteran's service-connected right knee disability and denied service connection for a left knee disability. The rating for the right knee disability remains at 10 percent.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his low back and cervical spine disabilities, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder, were denied. The initial rating decision assigned a 40% evaluation for the low back disability effective from January 26, 1998.

The veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for mechanical low back disability was denied as he failed to report for a necessary VA examination.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for a back disorder is not well-grounded because there is no evidence of a chronic lower back disorder in service or post-service, and no medical nexus between his current back disability and any incident during service.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for service connection for a bilateral knee disorder and back disability were not well-grounded, as there was no evidence showing a link between current conditions and service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's lumbosacral spine disability, manifested by pronounced intervertebral disc syndrome, warrants a rating of 60 percent.

The Board has determined that there is no competent medical evidence linking the appellant's current knee, shoulder, and lumbosacral strain disorders to his military service. The claims are therefore denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected lumbosacral strain and spondylolysis, L5 do not warrant a higher rating as they are not able to be rated due to his nonservice-connected paralysis.

The Board denied the reopening of a claim for service connection for a back disorder, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted.

The Board found that the veteran's psychiatric, right shoulder, and back disabilities were not incurred or aggravated by service. The evidence did not support a finding of chronicity in service.

The veteran's service-connected chronic low back pain is currently rated at 10 percent, and her residuals of a stress fracture of the pelvis are not compensable. The Board finds that she meets the criteria for a 20 percent evaluation for her low back pain.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his back disorder was denied as he failed to report for a required VA examination without good cause.

The veteran's low back strain is currently manifested by complaints of pain and some loss of range of motion. The Board has determined that a rating in excess of 20 percent for the veteran's low back strain is not warranted.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected thoracolumbar spine disorder does not warrant an evaluation in excess of 20 percent, and denied his claim for service connection for PTSD.

The Board granted a rating of 40 percent for chronic lumbosacral strain, effective January 12, 1987.

The veteran is seeking a total disability rating based on unemployability due to his service-connected disabilities. The RO has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting VA examinations.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for a right hip disorder, left ankle disorder, and thoracolumbar disorder (back strain) are not well-grounded. The evidence does not establish current disabilities or a link between any diagnosed conditions and service.

The Board found no competent medical evidence linking the veteran's current low back disability to his military service, and thus denied the claim for service connection.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for service connection were not well-grounded, as there was no competent medical evidence of a current disability linked to active duty.