Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2007

The veteran's service-connected low back strain with degenerative disc and joint disease was rated at 10 percent prior to October 24, 2005. The RO denied the claim for higher ratings as his disability did not meet the criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine the nature and etiology of the veteran's current back disability, including whether it is related to his in-service injuries. The initial increased rating for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss issue also requires further action.

The VA determined that the veteran's service-connected low back strain disability does not warrant a rating higher than 20 percent, as his symptoms do not meet or approximate the criteria for such a higher rating under either the prior or revised regulations.

The Board found that the veteran's low back disability has been primarily manifested by pain on use with lumbar spine flexion of 30 degrees and complaints of pain without evidence of unfavorable ankylosis. The veteran is not entitled to a higher evaluation under the old law.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current back disability is as likely as not related to his service-connected foot disability, and thus grants service connection for a chronic back disorder.

The veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine has been dismissed due to his death.

The Board has granted service connection for left knee degenerative joint disease and patellar tendonitis with myositis ossificans, but denied service connection for right knee disorder and lumbar disc disease.

The Board has remanded the case for further examination and analysis regarding the veteran's low back disability, including whether it is a congenital disease or defect that was aggravated during service.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate VCAA notice, and the veteran's claim for reopening service connection for a back disability is pending.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected chronic lumbosacral strain is being remanded due to the need for additional VA examinations and retrieval of relevant medical records.

The veteran's service-connected lumbar disc disease with degenerative joint disease and sciatica is currently rated at 10 percent, reflecting moderate functional impairment. The Board denied a higher rating.

The Board found no evidence of a chronic low back disability during service and denied the claim as there is insufficient medical evidence to establish a link between the veteran's current low back condition and his active duty service.

The veteran's lumbosacral spine disability is rated as 20 percent disabling, effective June 30, 2002. The VA determined that the condition does not warrant a higher rating based on current symptoms and examination findings.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his service-connected low back disability and right pelvic disability were denied. The RO granted a 60 percent evaluation for the low back disability effective February 18, 2000.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for scoliosis of the lumbar spine and a chronic skin disorder, but denied his claim for a compensable rating for scoliosis of the thoracic spine.

The veteran's claim for additional compensation for dependent children, B. and Y., was denied as they could not be added as dependents prior to January 22, 2004 due to exceeding the age of 23.

The Board found no evidence of a chronic skin rash in service and denied the claim. For other conditions, additional development is needed to determine if they are related to service.

The Board denied all claims for service connection and initial ratings, finding no evidence of a current disability related to service or new and material evidence.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and need for additional examinations.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and earlier effective dates were denied. The Board found no basis to grant higher ratings or earlier effective dates in any of the issues addressed.