Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The Board found that the Veteran's notice of disagreement was not timely filed, and therefore denied his appeal.

The Board dismissed the appeal for service connection of a thoracolumbar spine disorder due to withdrawal by the Veteran's attorney. The psychiatric disorder issue remains, but as there is no evidence of continuity of symptoms since service separation and no medical opinion linking current psychiatric disorders to service, the claim for service connection was denied.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claims for an increased disability rating for her service-connected lumbar spine disability and service connection for her acquired psychiatric disability.

The Veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and scheduling VA examinations.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities are not of such severity as to render him unable to obtain or maintain substantially gainful employment at any time during the period relevant to this appeal.

The Board determined that the Appellant's back disability was not aggravated by his active duty service, and thus denied his claims for service connection.

The Veteran's service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbosacral spine is rated at 60 percent, effective February 17, 1999. The Veteran also received a temporary total rating for convalescence following cervical spine surgery from April 12, 2005 to May 2005.

The Veteran's low back disability is rated at 40 percent, effective from the date of the decision. The TDIU claim prior to July 9, 1997 remains pending.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his low back disability was denied as the evidence did not show that forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine was limited to 30 degrees or less, and there were no significant neurological impairments. The Board found that the Veteran’s symptoms did not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected low back disability was denied, and the effective date assigned for the 60 percent evaluation is November 16, 1997.

The Veteran's low back disability was previously rated at 20 percent prior to June 2, 2005. Since then, the RO has maintained a 20 percent rating based on his current symptoms and limitations.

The Board has remanded the case due to the Veteran expressing disagreement with the denial of service connection for cervical and lumbar spine conditions, but no Statement of the Case (SOC) has been issued yet.

The Veteran's initial disability rating for DDD of the thoracolumbar spine was reduced from 20 percent to noncompensable, but a restoration of a 20 percent evaluation is granted.

The Board found that the acquired low back disability is not related to active military service and concluded that it was due to the aging process.

The Board has determined that there is no evidence to support service connection for the Veteran's claimed neck fracture and left arm disorders, as any current conditions are not related to his military service.

The Board found that the Veteran's December 17, 2004 visit to Seven Rivers Regional Medical Center was not rendered in a medical emergency and denied his claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses.

The Veteran seeks service connection for osteoarthritis of the lower lumbar spine and thoracolumbar spine. The Board finds additional questions must be addressed, including obtaining VA treatment records and a new examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current back disability.

The Board denied service connection for low back strain and hypertension, finding no evidence of current disabilities related to military service.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further examination and opinion regarding his claimed low back, bilateral knee, and bilateral ankle disabilities. The case will be returned to the Board after this additional development.

The Veteran's appeal was not timely filed regarding the issues of earlier effective dates for service connection and increased evaluations. As a result, these claims are denied.