Back / lumbar spine decisions — 2017

The Veteran's low back disability has been manifested by pain and limitation of motion, but no favorable or unfavorable lumbar ankylosis, pronounced IVDS, or incapacitating episodes have been demonstrated. Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the service-connected low back disability alone prevents him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation.

The Veteran's low back disability has been rated at 10 percent since October 1, 2008. The Board granted a 20 percent rating effective from the date of the March 2016 Statement of the Case.

The Veteran's claims for service connection and increased ratings have been denied. The Board found that new evidence did not reopen the claims, but granted a higher initial rating for his mood disorder.

The Veteran's lumbar degenerative disc disease was evaluated at a 10% rating prior to January 27, 2011 and denied for higher ratings. Since then, the condition has not met criteria for a higher than 20% rating.

The Board has ordered a remand due to the need for further verification of the appellant's service records and development of his claims, including VA examinations.

The Board denied service connection for a thoracolumbar spine disability and lung disability, finding that the evidence did not support these claims.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current low back disability is not related to his active service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient development of records and need for a supplemental opinion regarding service connection for low back disorder.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for additional development, including obtaining a retrospective VA medical opinion and considering the collective impact of all service-connected disabilities.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining VA and private treatment records and a supplemental opinion regarding the severity of his knee disabilities and whether his lumbar spine disability is related to his service-connected bilateral knee disabilities.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar spine and right hip disabilities, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable VA disability evaluation criteria.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar strain and right inguinal herniorrhaphy disabilities are being remanded due to the need for additional examinations and consideration of outstanding treatment records.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and a VA examination to assess the severity of his low back disability. The TDIU claim will also be considered.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation prior to April 7, 2014.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities have rendered him unable to obtain and retain substantially gainful employment for the entire appeal period.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for a lumbar spine disability, finding that there was no evidence to support a link between his current condition and his military service.

The Veteran's service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with mild stenosis rendered him unable to secure or maintain substantially gainful employment, and a TDIU is granted effective April 23, 1999.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected right shoulder disorder and lumbosacral strain.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for an upper and lower back disability has been dismissed due to the death of the claimant.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including lumbar spine, right knee limited motion, right knee instability, right knee scar, and right hip, precluded him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation prior to February 19, 2011. The Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise with respect to whether he was unemployable due to these disabilities.