Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a back disorder and for a compensable evaluation for residuals of a hydrocele, finding no evidence to support these claims.

The Board has granted the veteran's claim of secondary service connection for residuals of hysterectomy, finding that it is at least as likely as not that her total abdominal hysterectomy was caused by or aggravated by her service-connected pelvic inflammatory disease. The other issues regarding increased disability ratings and secondary service connection are remanded for further development.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete medical records and a need for further examination by an orthopedic physician.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine the nature and etiology of the veteran's low back disability and right hip disability, including whether they are related to service.

The Board found that the veteran's lumbar spondylosis is not related to his active service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has granted service connection for spondylosis of the lumbosacral spine and a compensable initial rating for residuals of a right fibula fracture. The claim for increased ratings for postoperative varicose veins is pending.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for a back disorder, finding that his current condition is not related to service or any incident therein.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of entitlement to increased ratings for his right elbow and shoulder injuries, as well as his claims to reopen service connection for back and cervical spine disabilities. The RO had previously denied these claims in October 1993.

The Board denied both claims for service connection, finding no evidence of a chronic low back disorder or neuropathy in service that could be linked to current conditions.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting further examinations.

The Board denied all issues on appeal, including increased ratings for the veteran's service-connected low back disorder, right knee disability, and hypertension.

The Board found that the veteran's low back disorder did not have its origins in service or for many years thereafter, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that a back disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service and is not related to the veteran's service-connected knee disabilities. Therefore, the claim for service connection for a back disorder secondary to his service-connected knee disabilities was denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including obtaining medical records and arranging for a VA examination.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for reopening his service connection claims for bilateral knee, back, right shoulder, and bilateral leg disabilities due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a right shoulder disability and neck disability, finding no competent evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The veteran's cervical spine disorder is currently rated at 20 percent under the amended schedule for rating spine disabilities, effective from September 23, 2002. The Board finds that this rating adequately reflects the severity of his disability.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claim of service connection for a back disorder, including as secondary to bilateral pes cavus. The Board concluded that the current lumbar spine pathologies are not shown to have been acquired in service or caused by a service-connected disability.

The veteran's service-connected lumbosacral strain is rated at 40 percent, the highest available rating under VA guidelines for this condition.

The Board denied the veteran's increased rating claims for his service-connected hyperthyroidism and lumbar and thoracic scoliosis, finding that the evidence did not support a higher disability rating under the applicable criteria.