Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2006

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for service connection due to a lack of VA medical treatment records and failure to provide proper notice regarding what constitutes material evidence.

The Board has remanded the case due to an error in a VA examination and needs further evidence, including another VA orthopedic examination.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities are of such severity as to preclude all forms of gainful employment, and the Board grants TDIU.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for cardiovascular disease and a higher rating for his low back disorder, as well as entitlement to a total rating by reason of individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. The evidence did not support these claims.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection as his current mid-lumbar spine osteoarthritis with a mild rotary scoliosis of the mid-lumbar spine is not related to his active military service or ACDUTRA.

The veteran's claim for a higher rating for bronchial asthma prior to November 1, 2005 was granted. The effective date of the 60 percent rating for bronchial asthma was set at September 27, 1998.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal.

The Board has granted a 60 percent rating for the veteran's residuals of a low back injury and an effective date of December 31, 2003.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current lumbar and cervical spine disorders did not result from service, nor were they aggravated by service. The veteran's pre-existing conditions have been exacerbated over time but are not considered to be related to military service.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for right eye macular degeneration and osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine were denied. The right eye disability is currently rated at 30 percent, while the lumbar spine disability remains at 20 percent.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have any of the claimed conditions as a result of his service. The claims for right knee, ankle, sinus headaches, low back, undiagnosed chronic fatigue syndrome, bilateral elbow pain, bilateral shoulder pain, bilateral wrist pain, and bilateral hand pain are all denied.

The Board is remanding the case for further development and consideration of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for chronic left inguinal hernia, chronic back disorder, and chronic neck disorder.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for residuals of lumbosacral strain, finding that his condition did not warrant such an increase based on moderate limitation of motion.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to issues with representation and a need for a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC).

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities, finding that the March 1998 rating decision denying TDIU was not clearly and unmistakably erroneous.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for an essential tremor and a back disorder, finding no legal basis for higher initial evaluations for tinnitus, and concluding that there is no evidence linking his current back disorder to his military service.

The Board found that the September 1984 VA right L3-L4 hemilaminectomy did not aggravate the veteran's preexisting back disorder and therefore, denied his claim for compensation benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board found no new and material evidence to reopen the claim, and denied service connection for a chronic low back disorder due to lack of medical nexus between the current condition and active service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current low back disability is not related to his service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran requested a personal hearing before the Board, which was granted. The case is now remanded for scheduling of this hearing.