Back / lumbar spine Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a low back disorder and an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for severe right rotator cuff disease with traumatic arthritis (major).

The Board has determined that there is no competent medical evidence of a current back disorder, hypertension, or left knee disorder. Therefore, the claims for service connection for these conditions are denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a back disorder as his current condition did not have its onset during service or due to a service-connected disability.

The Board found no medical evidence linking the veteran's current back disorder to his service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's low back disability warrants a 40 percent evaluation since the effective date of service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for peptic ulcer disease as not well-grounded. The appeal regarding the denial of an increased evaluation for a back disorder was dismissed due to lack of timely Substantive Appeal.

The veteran's low back pain is found to be secondary to his service-connected right foot disability, and the claim for service connection is granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for multiple joint pain, skin rash, and low back pain due to an undiagnosed illness are not well-grounded. The evidence does not support a finding of chronic disability related to these conditions.

The Board finds that the veteran is entitled to service connection for residuals of a right foot injury, including right foot arch impairment, and for a low back disorder secondary to his service-connected right foot injuries. The issue of entitlement to a compensable evaluation for residuals of a right foot injury remains pending.

The Board denied service connection for a low back disorder and an increased evaluation for left knee injury with postoperative chondromalacia. The veteran's claim is still pending.

The Board found that the veteran's claim of service connection for a low back disorder was not well-grounded due to lack of medical evidence linking his current condition to service.

The Board granted a 60% rating for lumbar spine spondylolisthesis with stenosis and radiculopathy, effective from June 16, 1989. The claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder was reopened but denied.

The veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for degenerative disc disease at L4-5 was granted, and he is currently receiving a 10 percent evaluation.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for service connection were not well-grounded and denied them. The reasons given included a lack of competent evidence linking current disabilities to service or service-connected conditions.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's lumbar spinal stenosis, currently rated at 20 percent.

The Board has found that the veteran's claim of service connection for a back condition is well-grounded and has ordered further examination to determine the etiology of his current low back disorder.

The Board denied service connection for a disability of the lumbosacral spine and granted service connection for a shrapnel wound scar of the right knee. The veteran's claim for other musculoskeletal disabilities of the right knee was not addressed as it is considered part of the service-connected scar.

The Board denied the claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and a back disorder, finding that new evidence did not provide sufficient material to reopen the claim. The appellant's current psychiatric disorder is presumed related to his military service, but there is no evidence of exposure to herbicide agents or direct service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for low back disorder and headache disorder are well grounded, and thus grants these issues.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating than what was already assigned.