Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran's spondylolisthesis of the lumbosacral spine warrants a higher initial rating of 20 percent, effective October 3, 1996. The claim for an increased rating for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss is denied as there are no compensable ratings available under current regulations.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for a back disorder, but finds that there is no probative evidence linking any current back disability to an incident of his military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed disabilities are not related to his military service and have denied all of his claims.

The Board found that the veteran's low back disability does not warrant a rating in excess of 40 percent, as there is no evidence of ankylosis or intervertebral disc syndrome with incapacitating episodes. The current range of motion and neurological findings do not meet criteria for higher ratings.

Your appeal is being remanded to the RO for scheduling a hearing before the Board at your request. You may present additional evidence or arguments during this process.

The Board has determined that the January 1999 rating decision denying service connection for an eye disorder, including astigmatism, is final. The additional evidence submitted since then does not meet the criteria to reopen this claim as new and material evidence.

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn, thus the case is dismissed.

The Board has granted the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder, with no specific rating assigned and without an effective date provided.

The Board denied service connection for a low back condition and a respiratory disorder, but granted service connection for pulmonary hypertension. The veteran's depression was rated at 70 percent under the criteria for PTSD. Service connection for right knee disability and left knee disability were both denied, as was a compensable evaluation for costochondritis.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and a right great toe injury, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete service medical records and needs further examination and opinion regarding whether the veteran's current low back disability is related to his military service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a testicular disorder and an increased evaluation for chronic recurrent osteomyelitis of the left os calcis. The claim for a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability is being remanded.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current neck, thoracic spine, lumbosacral spine, right knee, right shoulder, right hip, right calf, or right foot disability. The veteran's service-connected disabilities do not interfere with normal employment.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for low back strain and granted it, finding that new evidence supports a current disability and linking it to service.

The Board denied the veteran's request to reopen his claim of service connection for a back disability, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted.

The Board denied the veteran's service connection claims for degenerative arthritis of the left knee, right knee, left ankle, and right ankle as secondary to her service-connected hammertoe correction. The lumbar spine disorder claim was also denied.

The Board found no evidence to support a finding that the veteran's lower back pain was incurred in or aggravated by service and is not proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by his service-connected right foot disorder.

The Board found no current evidence of a back disability and denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased rating for his right ankle disability and service connection for a low back disorder, finding that there was no evidence to support either claim.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a Board videoconference hearing. The case will be returned to the Board after addressing any remaining issues.