Neck / cervical spine Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran's cervical spine stenosis did not develop during service and is not related to his military service. The evidence showed a motor vehicle accident post-service as the likely cause of his current condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed back, neck, eye, and lung disabilities were not incurred or aggravated by service. The evidence does not support a finding of direct service connection for these conditions.

The veteran's service-connected lumbar and thoracic spine disabilities are rated at 20 percent, while his cervical spine disability is rated at 10 percent. The Board finds that these ratings do not meet the criteria for higher evaluations under the applicable rating criteria.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current cervical and thoracic spine disorders are related to his inservice automobile accident, and thus service connection is granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's cervical spine disability is not service connected, as there is no clear and unmistakable evidence to show it was pre-existing and not aggravated by service. The VA examiner found that the congenital fusion at C3-4 and C6-7 is a disease and may be related to his period of active military service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the regional office.

The Board denied increased ratings for right shoulder strain with arthritis and cervical spine disability including spondylosis and degenerative disc disease, both rated at 20 percent.

The veteran's claims for a compensable rating for cervical strain and an initial or staged rating in excess of 10 percent for scars on chest, status post-wart removal were denied. The RO granted service connection but did not assign any compensation ratings.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the loss of a hearing recording, and he has requested another Travel Board hearing.

The Board granted the veteran a 100% rating for his service-connected schizophrenia effective from July 17, 1998. The ratings for cervical syringomyelia and tension headaches were also granted.

The Board found that the veteran's cervical spine injury preexisted service and was not aggravated by service, thus denying his claim for service connection.

The veteran is seeking service connection for cervical disc disease with myelopathy C4-5, C5-6, C6-7. The Board has determined that the current VA examination did not address this condition and that further examination may be necessary to determine its etiology.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 60 percent for his cervical spine disability, finding that the evidence did not support such an increase.

The veteran's appeal is denied as his service connection claim for cervical and thoracic spine disabilities was not granted, and the initial compensable rating for residual scars of the thoracic rib region and burn scars on the back was also denied.

The veteran's cervical spine disability is rated at 30 percent, and the other service-connected conditions are not compensably disabling.

The veteran was granted service connection for mixed headaches with myofacial and migrainous components and degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine effective April 7, 2003.

The Board has reopened the claims for service connection for back and neck disabilities based on new evidence submitted since the August 1993 rating decision. The new evidence supports a reasonable possibility that these conditions are related to military service.

The VA treatment did not result in a new disability, and any existing disability was not caused by the carelessness or negligence of the VA.

The veteran's DJD of the cervical spine was rated at 30 percent prior to September 26, 2003 and increased to 30 percent effective from September 26, 2003.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected cervical spine disability and fibromyalgia, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating under any applicable criteria.