Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2003

The Board found that the veteran's herniated disc at L4-L5 is related to his period of active duty for training in July 1992, and granted service connection.

The Board has granted a 20 percent rating for the veteran's service-connected lumbosacral strain with demonstrable deformity of L1, effective as of the date of this decision.

The Board found no current medical evidence of the veteran's claimed low back, right elbow, left elbow, and right knee disabilities. Therefore, service connection for these conditions was denied.

The veteran's service-connected lumbar spine myositis and degenerative arthritis is currently rated at 40 percent, which is the maximum rating under the appropriate schedular criteria. The Board denied his claim for an increased disability rating.

The Board has determined that the veteran's low back strain with degenerative disc disease does not warrant a higher evaluation, and his application for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability is also denied.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings were denied. The RO increased the rating for lumbosacral strain to 20 percent, and denied claims for a higher rating for right hip disability.

The Board found that the veteran's current low back disorder is related to his service, and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have a current low back disability and denied service connection for this condition. However, the appellant was granted service connection for degenerative joint disease of the left hip.

The Board has determined that the evidence supports a 40 percent rating for the veteran's service-connected lumbar strain with narrowing of the L5-S1 interspace and degenerative changes from November 1, 1994 to August 7, 1996.

The Board denied service connection for choroidal nevus of the right eye and low back disorder, finding that these conditions were not incurred or aggravated by active duty.

The Board found that the veteran's low back disability, which is currently rated at 20 percent, does not warrant a higher rating based on current evidence.

The veteran's cervical spine disability is rated at 40 percent, the maximum schedular rating available under Diagnostic Code 5287 for ankylosis. The Board also granted entitlement to TDIU based on his service-connected disabilities.

The veteran's low back disability is service-connected. However, the other conditions claimed are either not related to service or have resolved without residuals.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claim that his current back and psychiatric conditions are related to service, including reserve component service. The Board determined that any current disabilities were not incurred or aggravated in service.

The Board denied service connection for a low back disorder due to service-connected pes planus, finding that the veteran's service-connected pes planus did not aggravate his underlying low back disorder.

The Board found that the veteran's appeal was untimely filed, and thus dismissed the claims for an initial rating for PTSD in excess of 30 percent, an effective date prior to February 14, 1994 for the grant of service connection for PTSD, and to reopen the issue of service connection for a back disorder.

The Board found that the appellant's low back disorder is not related to any incident of his military service and denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for lumbosacral strain from May 6, 1993 to May 17, 1996 was denied. The claim for an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for lumbosacral strain effective May 18, 1996 was also denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his lumbosacral strain, finding that there was no evidence of ankylosis or other exceptional circumstances warranting higher ratings.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine, with renal injury due to new and material evidence being submitted. The underlying merits of the claim will be addressed in a separate decision.