{"page":"https://casescribe.ai/explorer/conditions/lumbar-spine-disability","generated_at":"2026-10-03T18:34:13.454Z","data_as_of":{"decisions":944125,"first_year":2017,"last_year":2026,"latest_decision":"2026-04-30","cfr":"2026-10-01","m21":"2026-09-29"},"about":{"publisher":"CaseScribe AI (VA Law Explorer)","source":"Public Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions (appeals of VA decisions, not VA's first decisions), M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, 38 CFR Parts 3 and 4.","method":"Outcomes are issue-level: each condition the Board decided in a decision counts once. Decision data is extracted by AI and can contain errors. Rates describe past appeals and do not predict any claim.","disclaimer":"For research only. CaseScribe AI is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Verify figures against the source decisions and regulations.","attribution":"Cite as: VA Law Explorer, CaseScribe AI, with the page URL."},"data":{"condition":"Lumbar spine disability","all_conditions_granted_pct":19.4,"decisions":828,"years":"2017-2026","granted_pct":1.9,"denied_pct":6.8,"remanded_pct":85.5,"granted_on_merits_pct":22.2,"by_year":[{"year":2017,"issues":34,"granted_pct":0,"denied_pct":8.8,"remanded_pct":82.4},{"year":2018,"issues":100,"granted_pct":0,"denied_pct":5,"remanded_pct":91},{"year":2019,"issues":111,"granted_pct":1.8,"denied_pct":9,"remanded_pct":82},{"year":2020,"issues":101,"granted_pct":3,"denied_pct":4,"remanded_pct":87.1},{"year":2021,"issues":80,"granted_pct":2.5,"denied_pct":8.8,"remanded_pct":82.5},{"year":2022,"issues":112,"granted_pct":2.7,"denied_pct":8.9,"remanded_pct":80.4},{"year":2023,"issues":91,"granted_pct":2.2,"denied_pct":4.4,"remanded_pct":86.8},{"year":2024,"issues":82,"granted_pct":2.4,"denied_pct":4.9,"remanded_pct":89},{"year":2025,"issues":78,"granted_pct":1.3,"denied_pct":5.1,"remanded_pct":91},{"year":2026,"issues":40,"granted_pct":2.5,"denied_pct":12.5,"remanded_pct":77.5}],"benefit_of_doubt_in_grants_pct":43.8,"evidence_on_merits":[{"evidence":"va_exam_favorable","decisions_with":165,"granted_pct_with":20,"granted_pct_without":22.6},{"evidence":"va_exam_unfavorable","decisions_with":679,"granted_pct_with":26.4,"granted_pct_without":10.5},{"evidence":"nexus_positive","decisions_with":227,"granted_pct_with":53.8,"granted_pct_without":15.3},{"evidence":"nexus_negative","decisions_with":460,"granted_pct_with":27.3,"granted_pct_without":17.9},{"evidence":"private_opinion","decisions_with":321,"granted_pct_with":26.9,"granted_pct_without":19.6},{"evidence":"treating_physician","decisions_with":60,"granted_pct_with":25,"granted_pct_without":21.9},{"evidence":"lay_statement","decisions_with":744,"granted_pct_with":25,"granted_pct_without":8.3},{"evidence":"combat_service","decisions_with":64,"granted_pct_with":20,"granted_pct_without":22.4}],"top_reasons":{"granted":[{"reason":"appellant withdrew appeal for increased rating","decisions":1},{"reason":"board lacks jurisdiction to review withdrawn issue","decisions":1},{"reason":"competent evidence indicates back disability related to active duty service","decisions":1},{"reason":"evidence evenly balanced between va and private opinions","decisions":1},{"reason":"evidence was found to be evenly balanced between 20% and 40% ratings, leading to the grant of 40%","decisions":1},{"reason":"examiner's opinion lacked rationale on painful motion","decisions":1}],"denied":[{"reason":"preponderance of the evidence against the claim","decisions":2},{"reason":"board found evidence did not demonstrate severe functional loss or functional equivalent of ankylosis required for higher ratings","decisions":1},{"reason":"board reviewed multiple va examinations from feb 2014 to sep 2024","decisions":1},{"reason":"condition not shown to be related to active duty service","decisions":1},{"reason":"consideration of flare-ups and functional impact","decisions":1},{"reason":"denied service connection for low back disability","decisions":1}]},"recent_examples":{"granted":[{"case_id":"24019848","year":2024,"judge":"T. RAYMOND","rationale":"Appellant withdrew appeal for increased rating.; Board lacks jurisdiction to review withdrawn issue."},{"case_id":"A23017212","year":2023,"judge":"JONATHAN B. KRAMER","rationale":"Reduction from 40% to 20% effective January 20, 2020, was improper.; RO failed to comply with 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 regarding rating reductions.; No adequate discussion of material improvement or its maintenance under ordinary conditions."},{"case_id":"A22022083","year":2022,"judge":"LAUREN BUSH","rationale":"Probative evidence indicates thoracic spine disability due to in-service injury.; Veteran and spouse testimony regarding back pain since in-service injury found credible.; Treating physician attributed thoracic pain to in-service injury with 50% contribution."}],"denied":[{"case_id":"24034571","year":2024,"judge":"JENNIFER HWA","rationale":"Board reviewed multiple VA examinations from Feb 2014 to Sep 2024.; Examinations noted pain with movement and some functional limitations, especially during flare-ups.; Board found evidence did not demonstrate severe functional loss or functional equivalent of ankylosis required for higher ratings.;… [truncated, 194 chars omitted]"},{"case_id":"24028071","year":2024,"judge":"H.M. WALKER","rationale":"Flexion limited to 60 degrees with pain.; Consideration of flare-ups and functional impact.; 20% rating criteria met for the entire period."},{"case_id":"23000772","year":2023,"judge":"LESLEY A. REIN","rationale":"Prior to April 29, 2016, forward flexion was 75 degrees, combined range of motion was 200 degrees, with no abnormal gait, spinal contour, or ankylosis.; From April 29, 2016, onwards, forward flexion was 50 degrees, combined range of motion was 150 degrees, with pain on weight bearing and tenderness,… [truncated, 212 chars omitted]"}]},"how_va_rates":null,"rules":[]}}