Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2007

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a 40 percent disability rating for his service-connected degenerative disc disease with sciatica, finding that the first increase in symptomatology was noted on September 2002 examination and thus the earliest possible effective date is February 24, 2002.

The Board has granted an increased rating to 10 percent for lumbosacral strain and confirmed the current 10 percent rating for Schmorl's node at T7.

The veteran's intervertebral disc disease of the cervical spine is currently evaluated at 20 percent, and the Board finds that a higher evaluation is not warranted based on the evidence.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD and a back disability due to incomplete information, including lack of verification of in-service stressors and need for additional medical opinions.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a back disability, right knee arthritis, and left knee arthritis. The evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were related to his military service.

The veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including proper notification and a VA examination.

The Board has granted the petition to reopen a final disallowed claim for service connection for dysthymic and anxiety disorders. The claims for low back disorder, degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine, and whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen final disallowed claims for migraine headaches are addressed in the REMAND portion of this decision.

The VA denied an increased rating for the veteran's L2 fracture of the lumbar spine, as his disability does not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining Social Security Administration records and VA outpatient treatment records from the Columbus VA Medical Center.

The Board has determined that the veteran's lumbar strain with lumbar spine degenerative disc disease warrants an initial evaluation of no more than 20 percent, as it is currently manifested by limited range of motion and muscle spasm.

The VA determined that the veteran's cervical spine disability, which is currently rated at 20 percent, does not warrant a higher rating based on the evidence provided.

The veteran's back disability was rated at 20% prior to March 11, 2003 and increased to 40% beginning from that date. The left shoulder strain was rated at 30%. Both ratings are granted.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to determine if there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the veteran's back disability existed prior to service and was not aggravated by service.

The VA denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for his service-connected cervical spine DDD, tinnitus, and low back DDD with arthritic changes. The VA found that the veteran did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation under the applicable rating schedule. Service connection was also denied for arthritis of various joints and GERD.

The veteran's low back strain was evaluated at 20 percent from January 21, 2003 to December 5, 2006.,From September 28, 2004, the veteran's low back strain was evaluated at 40 percent.

The veteran has withdrawn his appeal for the issues of increased rating and service connection.

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn and the case is dismissed.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have any of the claimed disabilities and therefore, service connection for these conditions is denied.

The Board found that the veteran's spine disability, other than his service-connected degenerative disc disease of lumbosacral spine, was not incurred in or aggravated by his active duty service and is not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected degenerative disc disease of lumbosacral spine.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a TDIU, finding that there was no final decision on the issue and that a reasonably raised claim for TDIU had not been properly before the Board.