Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2007

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current skin condition, and therefore service connection for a skin disorder is denied. The VA examiner found no evidence of an anxiety disorder related to service.

The veteran's lumbosacral spine condition, post-operative fusion, was rated at 50 percent prior to June 6, 2003 and at 80 percent since then.

The Board has determined that the veteran's low back disorder is related to his military service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed back disorder and anxiety/depression are not related to her active duty service, and thus denied both claims.

The veteran's claims for higher initial evaluations and service connection were denied. The lumbar spine condition remains at 20 percent, sinusitis at 10 percent, wrist fracture with arthritis at 10 percent, and recurrent central serous retinopathy of the right eye was granted.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection due to new and material evidence. However, it is determined that his degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine was not incurred in or aggravated by service, nor is it proximately due to or the result of his service-connected right ankle disability.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, gastritis, and a back condition. The veteran was not granted any increased ratings for his pilonidal cyst or hypertension.,Service connection was denied for gastritis and a back condition as there is no evidence linking these conditions to active duty service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for a chronic low back disability, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his previously denied claim. The Board also found that the veteran did not have a chronic low back disability incurred during his honorable period of active duty.

The veteran's case is being remanded to schedule a travel Board hearing. The issues include seeking higher ratings for his right knee disability and reopening service connection claims for related disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of service medical records and requests for additional information.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient VCAA notice and failure to provide proper hearing.

The Board has determined that the veteran's low back injury was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of June 25, 2002 for grants of service connection for onychomycosis, tinnitus, and disabilities of the right shoulder, lumbar spine, and right hip. The evidence did not support a finding that VA mishandled his pre-separation claims or that he filed an informal claim prior to June 25, 2002.

The Board has remanded the case for a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO.

The veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and a lumbar spine disorder were all denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support these claims.

The Board denied the veteran's petition to reopen his claim for a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes, effective from May 1, 1985, to January 30, 1989. The veteran's conditions did not meet the criteria for such a rating.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his lumbosacral strain with degenerative joint disease and degenerative disc disease with radiculopathy to the right leg in the L4-5 dermatome is being remanded due to the need for further development, including orthopedic and neurologic evaluations.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, finding no evidence of a nexus between his current disabilities and his military service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to obtain additional medical records and for further review of his claims.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development due to new evidence and a need for an updated VA examination.