Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2010

The Veteran's thoracolumbar spine disability is manifested by limitation of forward flexion to 35 degrees, with pain starting at 30 degrees. The combined range of motion is most severely limited to 94 degrees. This meets the criteria for a 40 percent evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5237.

The Board has denied the reopening of claims for service connection for arteriosclerotic heart disease, bilateral knee disability, lumbar spine disability, diabetes mellitus, and sleep apnea due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Veteran's claims for service connection and increased rating are being remanded to the RO for further development.

The Veteran's service-connected degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine is currently rated at 10 percent, and the evidence does not support a higher rating.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and a back disorder, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board finds that the Appellant's lumbar spine disorder was aggravated by a June 2006 injury during ACDUTRA, warranting service connection for this condition.

The Board has granted a 20 percent evaluation for the appellant's low back disability from August 9, 2008. Prior to this date, a 10 percent evaluation was assigned.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, which he claims is related to his service-connected peripheral vascular disease. The case has been remanded for further examination and opinion regarding whether the lumbar spine disorder is caused or aggravated by the service-connected peripheral vascular disease.

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to obtain updated VA treatment records, provide the Veteran with an adequate VA spine examination, and determine whether service connection for low back strain can be granted.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to obtain clarification of her periods of active duty, inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA), and active duty. She seeks service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, cervical spine disorder, intervertebral disc degeneration of the lumbar spine, bilateral plantar fasciitis, and hysterectomy.

The Veteran's claims for increased evaluations for his right ankle strain, right knee bipartite patella, and thoracolumbar spine strain are being remanded due to the need for additional development including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Board found that the Veteran's low back disability, diagnosed as degenerative disc disease and spondylosis of the lumbar spine and facet joint arthritis, is likely related to his active military service. The preponderance of evidence supports this finding.

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

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for back, right shoulder, left knee, and right knee disorders due to a lack of evidence showing current disability or continuity of symptomatology since service.

The Veteran's claimed conditions, including bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus, were not incurred in or aggravated by active service. Service connection is denied.

The Veteran's low back disability is rated at 20 percent from April 13, 2005 and continues to be granted. The issue of service connection for PTSD has been recharacterized as noted above.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claimed low back disorder, stomach disorder, and hiatal hernia/gastroesophageal reflux disease are not related to his period of active service. The evidence does not support a finding that these conditions were incurred or aggravated during his military service.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to an inadequate VA examination.

The Veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to conflicting medical opinions and the need for a new VA examination.

The appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining SSA records.