Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The Veteran's low back disability limits his range of motion to 42 degrees flexion with severe end range pain, warranting a 20 percent disability rating.

Throughout the rating period on appeal, the Veteran's lumbar disability has been productive of complaints of pain and muscle spasms; objectively her flexion is limited no worse than 45 degrees and there is no demonstration of ankylosis. The Board finds that the evidence does not support a higher evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected lumbar strain.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, neck disability, and back disability were denied. The Board found that there was no competent evidence of current disabilities or a nexus between the claimed conditions and service.

The Veteran's cervical spine disability is granted as service connected. The Veteran's lumbosacral myositis with radiculopathy is rated at 40 percent since July 8, 1998.

The Board found that the Veteran's back disability is not etiologically related to an in-service disease or injury and denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to inadequate examination reports and the need for additional medical opinions.

The Board determined that the Veteran's low back disability and hypertension are both directly related to his service, with no indication of secondary or aggravation. The Veteran was granted service connection for these conditions.

The Veteran's low back pain is not service-connected as it did not manifest during his period of active duty and there is no evidence that the current condition is related to his military service.

The Veteran's service-connected back disability and bilateral knee disabilities have been found to preclude him from securing and following substantially gainful employment, warranting a total rating for compensation purposes due to individual unemployability.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar strain and cervical spine fracture with chronic cervical strain were denied. The RO assigned initial disability ratings of 20 percent for each condition, effective April 2, 1998.

The Veteran's increased rating claims for his thoracolumbar spine disability were denied by the RO, and a 20 percent rating was assigned effective November 3, 2008.

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn and is therefore dismissed.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his service-connected degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine was granted effective December 16, 2008. He is now rated at 40 percent.

The Veteran is found to be unable to secure and follow substantially gainful employment due to his service-connected disabilities, which include degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, right ankle fusion, degenerative joint disease of the left shoulder, and other conditions. The TDIU has been granted.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for clarification regarding any underlying disabilities of the lumbar spine and their relation to military service, including the 1966 and 1991 motor vehicle accidents.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been presented to reopen the claim of service connection for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine.

The Veteran's low back disability is currently rated as 20 percent disabling, and his left foot disability is also rated at 20 percent. The Board found that the current ratings adequately reflect the severity of the disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and needs further examination for service connection of left ankle, knee, back, and cervical spine disorders.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and a VA examination to determine if the appellant now has a disability of the lumbar spine that may be related to his military service.

The Veteran meets the schedular criteria for TDIU, but his service-connected disabilities do not prevent him from securing and following substantially gainful employment. Therefore, TDIU is denied.