Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's current disabilities are related to service and to rate his left knee disability.

The Veteran's lumbosacral strain with right S1 radiculopathy was rated at 20 percent since December 12, 2007. The effective date for this rating is set as of that date. The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date was denied.

The Veteran's low back disability is granted as secondary to his service-connected right ankle and left foot disabilities. The Veteran's right ankle disability is rated at 20 percent, which is the maximum allowed under Diagnostic Code 5271. The Veteran's left foot disability is rated at 20 percent based on moderate severity.

The Veteran's service connection claims for a left ankle disability and low back disability are denied, while the claim for bilateral pes planus is pending.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and need for further medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's psychiatric disorder and lumbar spine disability were aggravated during his period of active duty service from February 2003 to April 2004.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development and adjudication, including compliance with the VA's duties to notify and assist, the conduct of a VA medical examination inclusive of a medical opinion as to the relationship between the claimed back disorder and service-connected residuals of cold injuries of the upper and lower extremities, and initial adjudication under governing law and regulations.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for further development, including obtaining his VA vocational rehabilitation records and considering all pertinent evidence since the last adjudication.

The Veteran's TDIU rating was granted effective January 5, 2004, based on his service-connected low back and leg disabilities.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and VA treatment records. The TDIU claim will also be remanded for further adjudication.

The Veteran's lumbosacral strain and cervical syndrome have been granted increased ratings to 40 percent and 30 percent, respectively, effective May 18, 2006.

The Board denied a rating in excess of 40 percent for the Veteran's low back disability from October 14, 1997, through April 29, 2008, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under either the old or new intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) criteria.

The Veteran's claims for higher initial disability ratings for his lumbar and thoracic spine disabilities have been denied. The VA has considered all relevant evidence, including the results of VA compensation examinations.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including skin disorders and a seizure disorder, were denied as the evidence did not show that these conditions were incurred or aggravated by active service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for extraschedular ratings for his service-connected bilateral pes planus, low back disability, and iliotibial friction band syndrome of both knees. The criteria for an extraschedular rating were not met in any of these cases.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development and examination, as there are issues regarding service connection for shoulder and spine disorders.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to properly adjudicate the Veteran's claims, including obtaining treatment records and providing a VCAA compliant letter.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a back disability has been reopened and granted. His claim for TDIU is also granted, with the presumption that his current neck disability is related to service injury.

The Board has ordered a remand for further examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's low back disability, which may or may not be related to service.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to inadequate examinations and missing VA treatment records.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination and consideration of secondary service connection.