Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2010

The Board found that the Veteran's low back disorder was not shown to be due to a disease or injury during his military service, nor is it otherwise related to service.

The Board found no evidence of chronic cervical or thoracolumbar spine disabilities during service and denied the Veteran's claims for service connection.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, a respiratory condition, a back disorder, and a urinary or prostate disorder. The evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were incurred in or aggravated by military service.

The Board found that the Veteran's current low back disability is not related to his service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for cataracts and an increased disability rating for lumbar spine DDD, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to his active duty service or service-connected diabetes mellitus type II.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for fibromyalgia, low back pain, and bilateral hip disability as they are not shown to be related to her service-connected foot disorder.

The Board has ordered a remand to obtain an adequate VA examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's low back strain with mild right-sided radiculopathy, including whether it is related to his military service or caused by his service-connected GSW.

The Veteran's claims for higher ratings for service-connected right shoulder and lumbosacral spine disabilities are remanded due to the need for additional examination.

The Board has determined that coccydinia is a result of the Appellant's INACDUTRA service, and her low back disorder is not related to any period of active duty or service. The other conditions are not found to be related to service.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional evidence and a medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's back disability.

The Board finds that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the previously denied low back claim. However, further development is required for resolution of the underlying service connection claim.

The Board has denied the appellant's claims for service connection for a low back disability, bilateral ear disability, and skin cancer on the left face and arm. The evidence does not support a finding that these conditions are related to service or herbicide exposure.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a right knee disorder and a back disorder, finding that there was no evidence of chronic disabilities since service.

The Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and a thoracolumbar spine disability, finding that the evidence did not support these claims based on lack of in-service or postservice diagnosis.

The Board denied reopening the claim for service connection for a low back disability and also denied the claim itself, finding that new evidence did not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. The Veteran's in-service injury was noted but no chronic disability was found.

The Veteran's right knee disorder and bilateral eye disorders are granted service connection. The Veteran's back and left ankle disorders do not meet the criteria for service connection.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is being remanded for further examination and development due to insufficient evidence of his employability.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for scheduling a videoconference hearing. The issues of service connection and rating for his claimed conditions are not addressed in this decision.

The Board found that the Veteran's current low back disorder is not related to his active service, and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has granted a 60 percent evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected asthma, effective from the date of this decision. The criteria for a higher 100 percent evaluation have not been met.