Lumbar Back Condition VA Claim Grants

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. On July 21, 2025, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran notified the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that he wanted to withdraw "all pending claims," including the issue of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 40 percent for thoracolumbar strain; the issues of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for frontal sinusitis, GERD, and hemorrhoids and blood in stool; and the issues of entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss, left shoulder disability, right shoulder disability, colon polyp disability, left shin splints, right shin splints, right ankle disability, and occasional finger numbness, tingling, and joint pain of the r…

Reasons & Bases (verbatim excerpts from decision)

The Veteran contends that his tinea corporis should have an initial compensable rating. After resolving reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds that a 10 percent rating, but not higher, is warranted. […] As noted above, in this case the predominant disability is dermatitis affecting the Veteran's chest. Resolving reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds that a 10 percent rating is warranted under the regulations effective prior to August 13, 2018. A November 2015 service treatment record (STR) indicated that he had tinea corporis and prescribed terbinafine, an oral medication, for 14 days. A January 2016 STR noted the 14-day terbinafine followed by topical lotrimin and indicated that "[s]ince then the rash has improved but it has yet to resolve." The January 2016 STR prescribed fluconazole, another oral medication, weekly for four weeks. A September 2017 VA examination noted a history of "intermittent" tinea corporis on the chest. The VA examination described it as a "hypopigmented macular rash on chest"; noted that it impacted less than 5 percent of both his total body area and exposed area; and indicated that, in the last 12 months, the Veteran had treatment of less than six weeks' total duration using anti-fungal cream. There are no records of treatment following the VA examination.

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

Headaches are due to service-connected lumbar strain.

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. On May 26, 2026, prior to the promulgation of a decision in this appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran, through his authorized representative, that a withdrawal of the appeal regarding entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for lumbosacral strain and in excess of 30 percent for GERD is requested. 2. Giving the benefit of the doubt, throughout the entire appeal period, the Veteran's psychiatric symptomology has been productive of total occupational and social impairment. 3. The award of a rating of 100 percent for PTSD throughout the claim period renders the issue of entitlement to a TDIU moot.

Reasons & Bases (verbatim excerpts from decision)

The Board finds that the Veteran has withdrawn this appeal regarding the aforementioned issues and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal regarding these issues and they are hereby dismissed. R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. C. R. 1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities and the criteria for specific ratings. If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned to the disability picture that more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. R. 7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. R. 3.

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. For the entire period on appeal, the Veteran's TBI residuals were manifested by occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas. 2. The Veteran is not eligible for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(r)(2); and in the absence of such regular aid and attendance, would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care due to his service-connected TBI residuals. 3.…

Reasons & Bases (verbatim excerpts from decision)

The Veteran's currently assigned 40 percent rating for TBI is based on a finding of cognitive impairment. Specifically, this rating was based on a prior assignment of a "2" for the Veteran's memory, attention, concentration, and executive functions, as indicated by the June 2010 VA examiner. […] The Board determines that SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(t) is warranted. As explained above, the Veteran is not eligible for SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(r)(2). Moreover, the evidence shows that, in the absence of the regular aid and attendance provided by the Veteran's wife, he would require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care, as discussed by Dr. G. T. in her October 2025 private medical opinion. While Dr. G. T. found that SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(t) is warranted as far back as September 2011, the Board determines that SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(t) is warranted from October 1, 2011, the earliest effective date possible under statute, which is also requested by the Veteran and his representative in the January 2026 Appellate Brief. See Pub. L. 111-275, 124 Stat. 2864 (2010).

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, OSA is at least as likely as not related to a service-connected condition, including obesity as an intermediate step. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, lumbar spine disability is at least as likely as not related to service-connected right ankle condition. 3. Throughout the period on appeal the Veteran had marked right ankle limitation of motion, as he had examinations showing five degrees of dorsiflexion with reduced plantar flexion as well as pain. The Veteran did not have right ankle ankylosis, or its equivalence.

Reasons & Bases (verbatim excerpts from decision)

In May 2021, a VA expert opined that the back condition was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of a service-connected condition. The VA expert explained that there was no medical evidence that distal joints (such as the ankle) cause lumbar strains. The expert stated that the joint such as the knee that is most proximal to the spine is the most likely contributing factor to the lumbar strain especially when the knee joint injury, that the Veteran sustained, led to the need for a power scooter. Thus, the VA expert concluded that the Veteran's back condition was less likely than not proximately due to, or the result of residuals of the right ankle. See C&P Examination received May 2021. […] The opinions in February 2020 and October 2020 both found that instead of the ankle the right knee joint was the more likely cause of his lumbar spine disability, noting that his knee condition caused him to use a cane, walker, and scooter. The May 2021 opinion opined that the knee was closer or more proximal to the back and as such was the more likely cause of the lumbar disability. Then the February 2024 opinion suggested that the Veteran's gait abnormality was not severe enough to cause his back condition.