Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2008

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn, and the case is dismissed.

The veteran's mechanical low back disability has been rated at 10 percent since September 20, 2002. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on the criteria for lumbosacral strain or intervertebral disc syndrome.

The Board found that the veteran's seizure disorder existed prior to service and was not aggravated by his military service. Therefore, the claim for service connection for a seizure disorder is denied.

The RO denied an increased rating for the lumbar spine disability, effective prior to January 5, 1999.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for cervical spine degenerative disc disease, allergic rhinitis, and status post excision of malignant melanoma were denied. The RO assigned a 40 percent evaluation for cervical spine degenerative disc disease effective from May 12, 2005.

The Board has granted service connection for aggravation of a preexisting personality disorder and service connection for GERD. The remaining claims are remanded for further development.

The veteran's disability, characterized as residuals of fracture of the right symphysis pubis with shortening of the right leg and sacroiliac joint dysfunction, and arthritis of the lumbar spine, is currently rated at 20 percent. The Board found that this rating adequately reflects the severity of his condition.

The veteran was granted a TDIU from September 21, 2001 to June 28, 2006 due to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a back disability and an increased rating for residuals of a fracture of the right fourth metacarpal, finding no competent medical evidence linking his current disabilities to service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for a low back disorder, hemorrhoids, and fungus of hands and feet have been denied as there is no medical evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board found no evidence of a nexus between the veteran's current neck, nose, and back disabilities and service. The claims for service connection were denied.

The case is being remanded for further development and adjudication due to conflicting medical evidence regarding the presence of a neurological component in the veteran's service-connected lumbosacral strain.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claim that his back disability was incurred or aggravated during service. The pre-existing condition of a low back injury prior to service is considered sound, and any current symptoms are attributed to natural progression of the disease.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims of service connection for bilateral shoulder, cervical spine, and low back conditions. However, the evidence does not support a finding that these conditions were incurred or aggravated by military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral spine is related to his active duty service and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for a back disability, but denied service connection for bilateral hip disability. The veteran's PTSD rating remains pending.

The Board has determined that the veteran was not unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities prior to December 18, 2003. As a result, an effective date earlier than this date is denied.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection of a back disorder and granted a 10 percent evaluation for degenerative joint disease of the right knee. The new evidence includes diagnoses of degenerative changes in the veteran's back, which was not considered in the previous denial.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development of her service connection claims, including obtaining additional medical records and scheduling VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of any hip, back, or chest pain disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to inadequate VCAA notice.