Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The Board has granted service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with S1 radiculopathy. The cervical spine and erectile dysfunction claims are remanded due to new theories presented by the Veteran.

The Board has determined that a chronic low back disorder is not currently shown and therefore, service connection for the Veteran's claimed condition cannot be granted.

The Board found that the Veteran's low back disorder did not pre-exist service and was not aggravated by service. However, the current diagnoses of degenerative disc disease and chronic lumbar strain have not been shown to be related to service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for prostatitis and a low back disorder, finding that there is no evidence of current disabilities or objective indications of chronic conditions. The Board also determined that the presumptions under 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 do not apply as his prostate related issues have been attributed to known clinical diagnoses.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for increased evaluation of lumbosacral spine disability, service connection for a right knee disability secondary to his lumbosacral spine disability, and TDIU due to his lumbosacral spine disability. The evidence did not support these claims.

The Veteran's service-connected low back disability is rated at 40 percent effective October 11, 2007. He also receives separate 10 percent ratings for associated radiculopathy in the right and left lower extremities.

The Veteran's degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine is currently rated at 40 percent, effective September 26, 2003. The rating was granted as a direct result of his service-connected condition.

The Board found that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen the claim for service connection for chronic low back syndrome with degenerative disc disease and scoliosis.

The Veteran's claims for an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for lumbar strain, service connection for residuals of heat stroke, and service connection for PTSD were denied. The claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD was expanded to include depression.

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

The Board has reopened the claims for stomach and low back disorders due to new evidence, but finds that service connection is not warranted as there is no credible evidence linking these conditions to service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current back disability, including sciatica and spinal stenosis, is the result of an injury during active duty. As such, service connection for a back disorder is granted.

The Board denied service connection for a low back disability and secondary service connection for heart disease due to major depression. The effective date for the grant of service connection for major depression was set at April 22, 2003.

The Veteran's claims for increased evaluations of osteoporosis of the lumbar spine and left hip have been dismissed as he has acknowledged that a separate 20 percent evaluation was granted for osteoporosis of the lumbar spine effective June 2, 2008.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for muscle pains, thoracolumbar spine disorder, bilateral shin splints, and muscle and joint pains due to an undiagnosed illness. The claim for increased ratings for retropatellar pain syndrome of both knees and headaches have also been denied.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for VA examinations to determine the nature and likely etiology of her claimed PTSD, back condition, and knee condition.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine was denied as it did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded to the RO for further development, including a new VA examination and consideration of his claims.

The Veteran's claim for a TDIU rating is being remanded due to the inadequacy of the January 2009 VA examination, which did not consider the impact of his service-connected disabilities on his employability and did not distinguish between service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete verification of service dates and need for a VA examination.