Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The veteran's service-connected Raynaud's disease and lumbar spine disability were both granted increased ratings. Service connection for various conditions was denied or not addressed.

The Board has reopened the claim of entitlement to service connection for postoperative residuals of bilateral inguinal hernias due to new and material evidence being received. The claims for back disorder and German measles were denied as there was no competent medical evidence relating these conditions to active service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for a higher rating for myositis of the lumbar spine and service connection for bilateral shoulder and cervical spine disorders, finding that his disability did not warrant an increased rating or service connection based on the evidence provided.

The Board has determined that the veteran's back disability is not related to service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a back disorder, osteoarthritis of multiple joints, and bilateral wrist disorder due to lack of evidence showing these conditions began during his period of honorable military service.

The VA determined that the veteran's lumbosacral strain does not warrant a rating higher than 20 percent, as his range of motion is sufficient to meet the criteria for a 20 percent disability rating under the revised spinal disability evaluation criteria.

The Board has ordered additional development to obtain missing service medical records, verify the veteran's dates of service with a reserve component, and obtain updated VA examination opinions. The appeal will be remanded for these actions.

The Board found that the veteran's current low back disability did not originate in service and is not related to any incident of service. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete service medical records and will consider the veteran's claim for a back disorder.

The Board found that the veteran's preexisting pes planus did not worsen during service, and thus denied his claim for service connection. The Board also determined that he did not have any current disabilities involving the lumbosacral spine, cervical spine, hips, knees or ankles due to disease or injury incurred in service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's lumbar myositis was incurred during service, and thus granted service connection.

The veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for his lumbosacral strain with degenerative disc disease was granted, but the maximum schedular rating of 40 percent is not warranted as there were no incapacitating episodes during the appeal period.

The Board has determined that the veteran's lumbosacral strain is related to his active service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for evaluations in excess of 20 percent and 40 percent for his degenerative disease of the lumbar spine, L5 right radiculopathy since August 2000 to February 2006. The effective date is set at February 13, 2006.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability and a back disability, finding that there is no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board found no evidence of vertebra fracture, ankylosis, incapacitating episodes, or chronic orthopedic and neurologic manifestations that would warrant a higher evaluation for the veteran's low back disorder. The claim was denied.

The Board has ordered a new VA examination to determine if the veteran's service-connected disabilities render him unemployable, considering all of his conditions together.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a low back disability that is attributable to his active military service and therefore denied his claim of service connection.

The Board has raised questions about whether the veteran's current spouse can be recognized as his dependent spouse for VA purposes. The case is being remanded to obtain necessary documentation and ensure proper notification under the VCAA.