The Board has determined that the appellant's upper extremity impairment is not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected low back disability, and thus denied his claim for service connection.
The deciding factor: Competent evidence linking the appellant's upper extremity symptoms with his service-connected low back disability was not presented. The assembled medical evidence suggests that his upper extremity symptoms are due to bilateral CTS and cervical disease rather than service-connected lumbar disorder.
- Claimed conditions
- upper extremity impairment
- How they argued it
- Secondary to another service-connected condition
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 26, 2006
- Citation
- 0633126
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,480 · Granted: 26% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0633126.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for an allowance for an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment was denied as he is not in receipt of service-connection for the conditions that would qualify him for such benefits, and his service-connected disabilities do not meet the criteria for loss of use of a foot.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to new evidence and need for further examination, including on intercostal neuralgia and upper extremity impairment.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for further development, specifically a VA examination addressing the etiology of the claimed disability. The veteran missed his scheduled VA examination and now requests rescheduling.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that further development is needed due to the submission of new evidence and a need for a VA examination. The appeal will be remanded to the RO for consideration.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.