Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2009

The Board denied the Veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection for a back disorder, finding no new and material evidence. The Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and compression fracture of the thoracic spine since July 1985, but there is no medical opinion linking these conditions to military service.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development of his claim, including obtaining medical records from a physician referenced in his September 2007 statement.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including low back disability, hearing loss, right knee disability, osteoarthritis of the hips, left hand disability, flat feet, and depression. The evidence submitted did not provide a link between these conditions and service or service-connected disabilities.

The Board found that the Veteran's need for aid and attendance was established as of May 13, 2005, based on his examination findings. Therefore, an effective date prior to this date is not warranted.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the Veteran's claims for service connection for hearing loss, a left shoulder disorder, chronic bronchitis, or a back disorder.

The Board has ordered the VA to verify the Veteran's periods of active and inactive duty for training, specifically focusing on September 1988. The case will be returned to the Board if further information is not provided.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete records and unfulfilled requests.

The case is being remanded for additional development, including scheduling a VA examination and providing Vazquez-Flores notice.

The Board has granted an increased disability rating for the Veteran's service-connected degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, currently rated at 10 percent.

The Board denied service connection for low back and neck disorders, finding no evidence of a causal link to active service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's low back disability warrants a 40 percent rating since October 23, 2008, based on severe limitation of motion and recurring attacks of intervertebral disc syndrome.

The Veteran's PTSD and lumbar myofascial pain syndrome with history of disc space narrowing are both service-connected, with the lumbar condition rated at 40 percent.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for her service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral spine was denied by the Board, as it is currently evaluated at a 20 percent disability rating.

The Board is remanding the case for additional development, including obtaining Social Security Administration records and providing content-complying notice as required by Kent v. Nicholson.

The Board has granted an initial evaluation of 70 percent for the appellant's PTSD disability, finding that it meets the criteria for such a rating. The lumbar spine disability is also rated at its maximum allowable under the applicable diagnostic codes.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not meet the schedular requirements for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability prior to September 23, 2002. The effective date of the TDIU rating is set at September 23, 2002.

The Veteran's service-connected back disability was evaluated at 10 percent prior to July 12, 2007 and increased to 40 percent effective July 12, 2007. The appeal is denied as the criteria for higher evaluations are not met.

The Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 60 percent prior to March 1, 2008 was denied. The reduction from 60 percent to 20 percent effective March 1, 2008 was upheld. The claim for TDIU remains pending.

The Board found that the Veteran's claimed conditions were not incurred or aggravated by service, and denied all claims.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his service-connected degenerative joint disease of the lumbosacral spine was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding that his disability warranted a rating in excess of 10 percent.