Neck / cervical spine Board decisions

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations and a total rating based on individual unemployability were denied. The claim to reopen his lumbosacral spine disorder was also denied, as the new evidence did not meet the criteria for reopening.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for muscle tension headaches, cervical spine strain, and hypertension due to a lack of well-grounded evidence.

The Board found that the cervical spine disorder is not related to service or service-connected conditions, and thus denied the claim.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed chronic cervical spine disability and bilateral hand numbness were not incurred or aggravated by active military service. The evidence does not support a finding of service connection for these conditions.

The Board has determined that the veteran's cervical spine disorder, characterized by severe intervertebral disc syndrome with recurring attacks and intermittent relief, warrants a 40 percent disability evaluation.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected disabilities did not render her unemployable on an ascertainable date prior to September 12, 1997 and denied the claim for an earlier effective date.

The Board has granted service connection for the claimed temporomandibular joint disability, facial nerve damage, and psychiatric disability. Service connection was denied for a neck disability.

The Board denied an increased rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss and granted a temporary increase from 10 to 20 percent for cervical and lumbar back strain. The veteran's current level of disability does not warrant a compensable rating for his bilateral hearing loss, but the claim is remanded for further development regarding his cervical and lumbar back strain.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of June 3, 1994 for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. The evidence did not show that the veteran was unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment prior to this date.

The Board found that service connection for ocular hypertension (claimed as glaucoma) is granted, and the rating for degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine was increased to 20 percent.

The veteran's service-connected lumbar and cervical spine disabilities have been rated at the maximum available benefit, with an effective date of September 23, 1989.

The Board denied an increased rating for PTSD, but granted a 20% rating for the veteran's service-connected fracture of Cervical Spine with Traumatic Arthritis.

The Board found the revision from a 50 percent to a 30 percent rating for cervical adenocarcinoma, post total hysterectomy was appropriate due to CUE in the original rating decision. The evaluation of hemorrhoids remains pending.

The veteran's application for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) was denied due to the presence of other factors, including his own decision to leave his employment. However, he received Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits which supported his claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased disability rating for his service-connected fracture, 2nd cervical vertebra, currently rated at 30 percent.

The Board found that the veteran's cervical spine disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by active service.

The veteran's service-connected cervical spine disability and residual post-operative keloid removal have materially contributed to his impairment in employability, making him eligible for vocational rehabilitation services.

The Board found that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant a rating higher than 30 percent, and his cervical spine disability is currently evaluated as 20 percent disabling.

The veteran's tinnitus is found to be related to service exposure, and the Board grants service connection for this condition. The other issues remain unresolved.

The Board has remanded the case to VARO for review and disposition of the issues on appeal, including consideration of additional evidence. The appellant is advised that she should respond to the supplemental statement of the case.