Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2015

The Board finds that the Veteran's current low back disability is at least as likely as not related to his active service, including a reported fall off a telephone pole. The evidence supports continuity of symptomatology since service separation.

The Veteran's claim for higher ratings for paravertebral muscle spasm of the lumbar spine prior to November 14, 2009 and since that date was denied. The evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable VA rating schedule.

The Board has remanded the case due to an inadequate medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's lumbar spine disability and service. The claim will be returned for further development.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating for his left femur fracture with traumatic left hip arthritis or lumbosacral strain, including degenerative disc disease.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities prevent him from being able to avoid the hazards or dangers incident to his daily environment without assistance, warranting special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance.

The Veteran's claims for service connection were denied as her conditions are not shown to be related to her military service, including service in the Persian Gulf. The appeal was reopened on new evidence.

The Veteran's right wrist/hand and lumbar spine disabilities are granted as secondary to her service-connected right shoulder bursitis and left knee/foot disabilities, respectively. She is currently rated at 30% for the right shoulder disability.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a new VA examination and proper notice regarding secondary service connection.

The Veteran's claims for service connection were denied, with the exception of a noncompensable rating for left knee disability.

The Board has remanded the case for a Travel Board hearing and further development.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claims for service connection for a lumbar spine disability, myofascial pain syndrome, neurological disabilities of the right and left lower extremities, and depression. The Veteran's right ear hearing loss claim is remanded for additional development.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for degenerative joint disease/degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA and SSA records.

The Board found that the Veteran's lumbar spine disorder, right hip disorder, left hip disorder, and right knee disorder were not incurred in or aggravated by active service. The evidence indicated that these conditions pre-existed service and were not aggravated during service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral plantar fasciitis and chronic low back disorder are not related to his service, and thus denied both claims.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities render him unable to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment, warranting a TDIU.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA and private treatment records, scheduling a VA examination, and clarifying whether the appellant continues to receive treatment at Madigan Army Medical Center.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the Veteran's death, as it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal at this time.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's GERD was not shown in service or for many years thereafter, and there is no competent evidence suggesting a relationship to service. Therefore, the claim for service connection for GERD is denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine is at least as likely as not aggravated by his service-connected knee disabilities, and thus grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has remanded the case due to the Veteran's failure to appear for a requested hearing. The case will be returned to the AOJ for further action.