Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The Board has determined that a rating of 40 percent for the orthopedic manifestations of the Veteran's low back disability is warranted, effective January 27, 2009.

The Board has ordered a remand due to the failure to obtain private medical records from Dr. S.P. of Carolina Orthopaedics and Dr. G.M. of Strand Orthopaedic Consultants, as well as VA treatment records.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's low back disability, including arthritis of the lumbar spine, was not caused or aggravated by military service.

The Board found that the Veteran's low back disability did not have its onset during service and is not otherwise related, thus denying his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected left knee, right knee, lumbar spine, and right ankle disabilities have been denied as the Veteran failed to report for scheduled VA examinations without good cause.

The Veteran's PTSD and lumbar spine disabilities have been rated, but the ratings are mixed. The PTSD has a 70% rating prior to January 8, 2015, and from that date onwards. The lumbar spine disability has a 10% rating before September 10, 2015, and a 20% rating after that date.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and TDIU were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent prior to March 17, 2016 or in excess of 40 percent since then.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and residuals of a fracture of the left tibia and fibula were denied. The Board found that the assigned schedular evaluations adequately reflected the Veteran's disability levels.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including an updated VA examination to assess the current severity of his lumbosacral strain with degenerative joint disease L5-S1.

The Veteran's lumbar strain was initially rated as noncompensable prior to April 2, 2008 and subsequently rated at 10 percent thereafter. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating for any period.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claim for a VA examination due to his failure to report for an April 2017 VA examination. The case will be returned to the Board for further development and consideration.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to incomplete records and need for an updated VA examination.

The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to new evidence obtained after the latest supplemental statement of the case was issued in March 2015. The appellant is advised that he may submit any relevant VA and private treatment records in his possession.

The Veteran's lumbar spine disability is currently rated at 40 percent, effective August 31, 2011.

The Veteran's attorney withdrew the appeal for service connection claims related to low back disability and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy.

The Board has granted service connection for migraine headaches. The Veteran's current migraine headaches are found to be etiologically related to her military service.

The Veteran's lumbar spondylosis and discogenic disease at L5-S1 is related to his active duty service, and the Board has granted service connection for this condition. The claim for skin rash remains pending as it requires further examination.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for lumbosacral strain, claimed as back pain, is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination and etiology opinion.

The Veteran's appeal has been dismissed for the issue of service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board found that his PTSD warrants a 70 percent disability rating, but not higher.

Service connection for a back condition was denied in May 2008 and remains denied.,Service connection for bilateral foot disorder has been reopened but remains denied. Evidence received since the November 1992 rating decision is new and material, raising a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.