Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2005

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to September 26, 1995 for a TDIU due to his service-connected disabilities. The RO granted increased ratings and a TDIU effective September 26, 1995.

The veteran's thoracolumbar spine disability was granted a rating of 40 percent as of September 26, 2003, for severe limitation of motion.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for low back and leg disabilities in February 1983, finding no competent evidence linking these conditions to incidents during service. The decision is final as of that date.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete Social Security Administration records.

The veteran's residuals of a lumbar spine injury are currently rated at 20 percent, and the Board finds that this rating is not higher than what is warranted based on his current symptoms.

The VA determined that the veteran's low back disability, rated at 20 percent under Diagnostic Code 5295 for lumbosacral strain, does not warrant a higher rating as it does not meet the criteria for an evaluation in excess of 20 percent based on the current evidence.

The veteran's chronic lumbosacral strain was granted a 20 percent rating effective September 26, 2003. The issue of an earlier effective date for the 30 percent rating for bilateral pes planus is not warranted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's fibromyositis of the lumbosacral spine warrants a rating of 40 percent, effective from September 26, 2003.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a VA examination to determine if any of the veteran's claimed conditions began during service or are otherwise linked to incidents in service.

The veteran's service-connected low back disorder, right knee degenerative changes, and hypertension are rated at 20%, 10%, and 10% respectively. The combined rating is 40%. However, the veteran does not meet the criteria for a TDIU based on his service-connected disabilities.

The veteran's small lumbar disc herniation was previously rated at 20 percent, but since February 19, 2004, it has been rated at 40 percent due to severe symptoms with recurring attacks and intermittent relief.

Throughout the rating period on appeal, the veteran's lumbar spine spondylolisthesis with spondylolysis and scoliosis has been manifested by complaints of pain, productive of no more than moderate limitation of motion. The criteria for entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent have not been met.

The veteran's medical conditions do not meet the regulatory criteria for special monthly pension based on need for regular aid and attendance of another person.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a back disability or tinea pedis that is related to his military service and therefore denied both claims.

The Board found that the submitted evidence was not new and material, thus denying the request to reopen the claim of service connection for a low back disability.

The Board finds that the veteran is entitled to an effective date of September 27, 2001 for the establishment of service connection for diabetes mellitus. The claim was received more than one year after the May 8, 2001 effective date for this change in regulations. The veteran's erectile dysfunction and low back disorder were not granted as service-connected conditions.

The Board dismissed the veteran's appeal because his notice of disagreement was not timely filed with respect to his claims for service connection.

The veteran's treatment at Bay Pines Community Hospital on March 14, 2003, was for a service-connected disability (post-operative residuals of a herniated disc, lumbar spine) and was deemed an emergency due to the severity of his symptoms.,Similarly, the veteran's treatment at Bay Pines Community Hospital on June 5, 2003, was also for a service-connected disability (Type II diabetes mellitus) and was deemed an emergency due to the severity of his symptoms.

The Board denied service connection for skin disorder, prostate disorder, hypertension, and low back disorder. The veteran's skin condition is not attributable to service or Agent Orange exposure. His prostate disorder was not incurred in service. Hypertension is presumed due to Agent Orange exposure, but the veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a low back disorder.

The Board denied reopening the veteran's claims for service connection for anemia and a back disorder, finding that new and material evidence had not been received to support these claims.