Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection and an increased rating, finding that a cervical spine disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and that his low back disability is equivalent to moderate intervertebral disc syndrome with recurring attacks.

The Board has remanded the case for compliance with a previous remand order, requiring additional development and consideration of new evidence.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased disability rating for his service-connected lumbar condition and denied his claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development and consideration of the claims, including obtaining medical records from private sources and information from the Social Security Administration.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected disabilities do not render him unemployable, and thus denied his claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability.

The Board denied service connection for an ulcer disorder, headaches, and a knee disorder. The veteran's scarlet fever was not found to be related to her military service. Service connection for a back disorder was also denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current back disability, including chronic low back pain and intervertebral disc herniations, is at least as likely related to his service-connected lumbosacral strain injury in 1980. The Board granted service connection for residuals of a lumbosacral strain.

The veteran's claim for a certificate of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile and adaptive equipment or for adaptive equipment only was denied because he does not meet the criteria for such benefits due to his service-connected disabilities.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further examination and evaluation of his lumbosacral strain disability, including consideration of the revised rating criteria.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to a change in law and because of new evidence obtained by the Board.

The Board found that the veteran's left ankle disability, kidney disability, bilateral foot disability, and back disability were not incurred or aggravated by service.

The veteran's appeal is remanded for additional development, including obtaining recent medical records and scheduling VA examinations to evaluate his lumbar spine disability.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his residuals of pilonidal cystectomy was granted, with a current evaluation of 10 percent.,Service connection for back disability was denied as not well grounded.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA and private medical records related to the veteran's feet and back disabilities, scheduling a VA examination, and considering the claims in light of any new evidence.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for increased evaluations for his hearing loss and lumbar spine disabilities, finding that the evidence did not support a compensable evaluation at any time.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for schizophrenia and a back condition, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claims.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not meet the criteria for special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance due to his disabilities, as they do not render him helpless or require assistance with daily activities.

The veteran's bilateral pes planus was found to be incurred in service, and he is granted service connection for this condition. The other claims of service connection are also granted.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a low back, bilateral ankle, hip, or knee disability related to his service or a service-connected condition. The varicose veins of the right leg are rated at 20% prior to October 17, 2002.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities do not prevent him from securing and following substantially gainful employment.