PENIS DEFORMITY WITH LOSS OF ERECTILE POWER

Summary

The Veteran served from July 1983 to July 2003. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for chronic testicular pain, chronic groin pain, and neck pain. The Veteran also appeals the denial of an increased rating for his service-connected back disability for the period beginning April 10, 2023. Regarding the testicular and groin pain claims, the Board found no evidence of a current disability. The Veteran's testicular pain was considered a manifestation of his service-connected back and radicular pain, and he denied groin pain symptoms. For the neck pain claim, the Veteran sought service connection as secondary to his back disability. While the Veteran reported neck pain onset in 2019 following an accident, and private records supported this etiology, the Board found his statements to private clinicians more credible than his statements to the VA examiner regarding the onset and secondary nature of the pain. The Board relied on the VA examiner's opinion that neck and back arthritis are medically unrelated and that the Veteran's neck disability was less likely than not proximately due to his service-connected back disability. For the back disability, the Veteran sought an increased rating beyond the 20 percent he was granted in April 2023. The Board reviewed evidence from the period on appeal, including VA examinations and private treatment records. While the Veteran reported significant pain and flare-ups, the objective range of motion measurements and the absence of specific findings like ankylosis or severe gait abnormalities did not meet the criteria for a rating higher than 20 percent. Service connection for testicular pain, groin pain, and neck pain were denied. The claim for an increased rating for back disability was also denied.

Rationale

No evidence of current disability; Pain considered manifestation of service-connected back/radicular pain; No diagnosis of male reproductive organ condition

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039182
Decision Date: 04/27/26	Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 240915-475434
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for chronic testicular pain is denied.

Service connection for chronic groin pain is denied. 

Service connection for degenerative arthritis of the neck (claimed as neck pain) is denied. 

A rating in excess of 20 percent for a back disability for the period beginning April 10, 2023 is denied. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a condition of the male reproductive system or groin at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

2. The Veteran's neck pain is not secondary to his service-connected back disability.

3. During the period on appeal, the Veteran's service-connected back disability was shown to be productive of complaints of pain and limitation of motion, but forward flexion was not shown to be functionally limited to 30 degrees or less. Additionally, his back disability was not shown to result in favorable or unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine, unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine, or the functional equivalent thereof.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for chronic testicular pain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

2. The criteria for service connection for chronic groin pain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

3. The criteria for service connection for neck pain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

4. The criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for a back disability for the period beginning April 10, 2023 have not been met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5242-5243.  

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1983 to July 2003. 

In the September 15, 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement or NOD), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2024 (neck) agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran (or his representative) with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. With respect to his testicular pain, groin pain, and back claims, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2023 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran (or his representative) with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. Id. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decisions on appeal but prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Preliminarily, the Board must clarify the issues on appeal. In the September 2024 NOD, with respect to his neck claim, the Veteran noted disagreement with the August 2023 rating decision. However, the AOJ did not render a decision on this claim in August 2023. Instead, it deferred and later denied the claim in a January 2024 rating decision. A veteran has one year to file a NOD if he disagrees with a VA rating decision. Absent the filing of a NOD within a
 relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Preliminarily, the Board must clarify the issues on appeal. In the September 2024 NOD, with respect to his neck claim, the Veteran noted disagreement with the August 2023 rating decision. However, the AOJ did not render a decision on this claim in August 2023. Instead, it deferred and later denied the claim in a January 2024 rating decision. A veteran has one year to file a NOD if he disagrees with a VA rating decision. Absent the filing of a NOD within a year, the claim becomes final and requires new and relevant evidence to reopen. Because the September 2024 NOD was received within one year of the January 2024 denial, the Board considers the Veteran's neck service connection claim timely appealed. 

In the September 2024 NOD, the Veteran also noted disagreement with an August 2004 rating decision in relation to his back (specifically, August 29, 2004). Further, he noted disagreement with the August 2023 rating decision regarding his right lower extremity radiculopathy. Having carefully reviewed the claims file, the Board notes that there is no evidence of an August 2004 rating decision in relation to the Veteran's back. There is, however, a March 2004 rating decision which became final. With respect to his right lower extremity radiculopathy, this issue was not included in the August 2023 Request for Higher-Level Review. As such, the AOJ's decision on this claim also became final. Thus, the September 2024 NOD cannot serve to provide the Board with jurisdiction over these claims.

Service Connection

Generally, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be granted on a secondary basis for a disability if it is due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) a current disability exists and (2) the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc).

The requirement of a current disability is satisfied when the Veteran has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

1. Service connection for chronic testicular pain is denied.

2. Service connection for chronic groin pain is denied.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for chronic testicular and groin pain. He contends that these conditions are secondary to his service-connected back disability. 

The Board will now discuss the relevant evidence of record. 

July 1999 service treatment records document complaints of a lump in the Veteran's left testicle; he also complained of pain. Later that month, he underwent an ultrasound which was noted to be "NORMAL," and the Veteran reported that his pain had improved. He was not diagnosed with a condition of the male reproductive organ.  September 2002 service treatment records indicate that the Veteran denied leg or groin pain. 

In November 2003, shortly after separation from active service, the Veteran attended a VA examination to assess his back. During his examination, he reported that he initially injured his back during active service which resulted in pain. Notably, he reported experiencing "some radiation" of pain into his groin "at the initial accident and shortly following, but that had resolved."  The Veteran was not diagnosed with a groin condition.

During a September 2010 VA Medical Center (MC) evaluation, the Veteran recounted that his back pain began during the military with pain radiating into the right testicle and thigh. 

The Veteran attended a July 2023 VA examination at which he reported that he had experienced right-sided pain and numbing with use or when his back pain was at "its worst." He also reported that if he continued to work or if he "tweak[ed]" it, the pain would progress to the left side. Following examination, the Veteran was not diagnosed with any condition of the male reproductive system. In the remarks section of the report, the examiner indicated that there was no male reproductive system condition. Rather, the Veteran's pain seemed to be a "radiating sequela of [his] back pain." 

Also in July 2023, the Veteran attended an examination
 pain radiating into the right testicle and thigh. 

The Veteran attended a July 2023 VA examination at which he reported that he had experienced right-sided pain and numbing with use or when his back pain was at "its worst." He also reported that if he continued to work or if he "tweak[ed]" it, the pain would progress to the left side. Following examination, the Veteran was not diagnosed with any condition of the male reproductive system. In the remarks section of the report, the examiner indicated that there was no male reproductive system condition. Rather, the Veteran's pain seemed to be a "radiating sequela of [his] back pain." 

Also in July 2023, the Veteran attended an examination to assess his hips and thighs. During his examination, the Veteran did not report chronic groin pain. In fact, he denied experiencing any symptomology in relation to his groin (hip area).  As a result, he was not diagnosed with a groin condition. 

In an August 2023 VAMC primary care note, the review of systems section notes, "Low back pain with radiculopathy to right groin."

Private treatment records do not provide for any greater findings than those detailed above. Specifically, the records do not indicate a diagnosis of the male reproductive organ or groin.

Having carefully reviewed the relevant evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for either condition as there is no evidence of a current disability. Specifically, the evidence persuasively suggests that the Veteran's testicular pain is an extension/manifestation of his low back and right lower extremity radicular pain, for which he is already service-connected. Also, with respect to his groin pain, he explicitly denied any symptomology. Without evidence of a current disability, the first element of the service connection analysis cannot be met. 

Accordingly, the claims are denied. 

3. Service connection for degenerative arthritis of the neck (claimed as neck pain) is denied. 

In May 2023, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for neck pain as secondary to his back disability. Specifically, he typed, "Under Lower Lumbar 'Back' - Neck Pain."  

The Board will now discuss the relevant evidence of record. 

Service treatment records are devoid of any complaints, diagnoses, or treatment related to the Veteran's neck or cervical spine. 

During a November 2003 VA examination, the Veteran was given a physical examination. The examiner noted a "normal" examination of his cervical spine with full range of motion.

2019 VAMC records note complaints of neck pain and associated treatment; however, the records do not indicate an etiology. 

The Veteran attended a July 2023 VA examination at which he was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine. During the examination, he reported that his condition began approximately ten years prior. Onset was described as "Insidious." He reported current symptoms of pain, mostly at the back of the neck, with the right side being worse than the left. He also reported radiculopathy down the right arm. The examiner noted that "pain goes down the back of the shoulder and into the back." 

The examiner opined that the Veteran's neck disability was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of his service-connected degenerative arthritis (back disability). In this regard, he explained that neck pain (diagnosed as degenerative arthritis) and degenerative arthritis of the spine are separate conditions that are not medically related; arthritis of one joint/disc does not spread to an unaffected joint or other joints. Additionally, the examiner noted that a review of relevant medical literature failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between the two conditions. Further, the examiner stated that there was no objective medical evidence noted in the claims file to support or confirm a conclusion that the Veteran's neck disability is due to or the result of his service-connected back disability. The Board finds this opinion adequate to decide the claim as it is reflective of a thorough review of the claims file and pertinent medical literature. Of note, neither the Veteran nor his attorney have provided any evidence to refute the examiner's opinion.

In September 2024, along with his NOD, the Veteran submitted private medical records which indicate that his neck pain was related to a 2019 accident. Specifically, a June 2020 physical therapy note states, "Onset of pain approximately Spring 2019 [] during an accident on a side by side." The report later describes a Spring 2019 "side-by-side ATV accident" which resulted in neck and shoulder injuries. Also, a March 2021 physical therapy examination report notes a history of neck and shoulder pain for at least two years (onset in 2019). The record makes no mention of neck pain as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected back disability. 

Having carefully considered the relevant evidence of record, including the evidence provided
4, along with his NOD, the Veteran submitted private medical records which indicate that his neck pain was related to a 2019 accident. Specifically, a June 2020 physical therapy note states, "Onset of pain approximately Spring 2019 [] during an accident on a side by side." The report later describes a Spring 2019 "side-by-side ATV accident" which resulted in neck and shoulder injuries. Also, a March 2021 physical therapy examination report notes a history of neck and shoulder pain for at least two years (onset in 2019). The record makes no mention of neck pain as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected back disability. 

Having carefully considered the relevant evidence of record, including the evidence provided by the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted as the evidence fails to suggest that the Veteran's neck disability is secondary to his service-connected back disability. This finding is supported by the unrefuted medical opinion of record, as detailed above. In sum, the examiner adequately explained that there is no relation between the two conditions. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran's back disability could neither cause nor aggravate his neck disability. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's statement that his neck pain is secondary to his back disability; however, he has not been shown to be competent (meaning medically trained) to render an opinion regarding the etiology of his neck pain as such is a medically complex question. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For this reason, the Board cannot rely on his statement in order to grant service connection on a secondary basis. 

Even more, the Board's finding is supported by the Veteran's private treatment records which explicitly detail an etiology for his neck pain. That is, his Spring 2019 ATV accident. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's statement to the VA examiner that his neck pain began approximately ten years prior (2013); however, the Board finds his statements to private clinicians more credible. In this regard, the Board notes that those statements were made in the context of seeking medical care, including therapy, adding an incentive for him to be honest and forthcoming with all pertinent information in order to receive the best treatment. It stands to reason that if he had experienced neck pain since at least 2013, or if he had believed that his neck pain was caused by his back disability, he would have reported this, and it would have been documented. Thus, the Board finds this evidence most compelling.

Accordingly, the claim is denied. 

4. A rating in excess of 20 percent for a back disability for the period beginning April 10, 2023 is denied. 

The Veteran is seeking a higher rating for his service-connected back disability. His claim was granted in a January 2024 Higher-Level Review rating decision (note, the evidentiary record closed as of the date of notice of the AOJ's prior decision: August 17, 2023). Therein, the Veteran's rating was increased from 10 percent to 20 percent disabling, effective April 10, 2023. In turn, the Veteran appealed. 

The period on appeal before the Board begins April 10, 2022 (one year prior to the date VA received the Veteran's Intent to File) to August 17, 2023 (date VA sent notice of the August 2023 rating decision). See Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, a rating can only be assigned in the year prior to April 2023 if it is factually ascertainable that the Veteran's back disability met the criteria for a higher rating during that time.  

The Veteran's disability is rated under DC 5242-5243. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Disabilities of the spine are evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (General Formula) or the Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes (IVDS Formula), whichever is more favorable to the Veteran, provided the criteria for both evaluations are met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5235-43. In this case, however, the evidence of record fails to show or suggest that the Veteran had any "incapacitating" episodes, defined for VA rating purposes as a period of acute signs and symptoms due to Intervertebral Disc Syndrome (IVDS) requiring bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5243, Note 1. This leaves the Board with the evaluation of the Veteran's back disability under the General Formula.

Under the General Formula
DS Formula), whichever is more favorable to the Veteran, provided the criteria for both evaluations are met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5235-43. In this case, however, the evidence of record fails to show or suggest that the Veteran had any "incapacitating" episodes, defined for VA rating purposes as a period of acute signs and symptoms due to Intervertebral Disc Syndrome (IVDS) requiring bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5243, Note 1. This leaves the Board with the evaluation of the Veteran's back disability under the General Formula.

Under the General Formula, a 20 percent rating is assigned for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or the combined range of motion (ROM) of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a.

A 40 percent rating is assigned for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine 30 degrees or less; or favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. Id.

A 50 percent rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. Id.

A maximum 100 percent rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. Id.

Note 1 to the rating formula specifies that any associated objective neurologic abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, should be separately evaluated under an appropriate DC.

Note 2 states that, for VA compensation purposes, normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is zero to 90 degrees, extension is zero to 30 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 30 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 30 degrees. The combined ROM refers to the sum of the range of forward flexion, extension, left and right lateral flexion, and left and right rotation. The normal combined ROM of the thoracolumbar spine is 240 degrees. The normal ROM for each component of spinal motion provided in this note are the maximum that can be used for calculation of the combined ROM.

When evaluating joint disabilities rated on the basis of limitation of motion, VA must consider granting a higher rating in cases in which functional loss due to pain, weakness, excess fatigability, or incoordination is demonstrated, and those factors are not contemplated by the relevant rating criteria. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59; DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). The Court has clarified that although pain may be a cause or manifestation of functional loss, limitation of motion due to pain is not necessarily rated at the same level as functional loss where motion is impeded. See Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011).

In Mitchell, the Court explained that pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45, the possible manifestations of functional loss include decreased or abnormal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, or endurance, as well as less or more movement than is normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and pain on movement (as well as swelling, deformity, and atrophy) that affects stability, standing, and weight-bearing. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45. Functional loss caused by pain must be rated at the same level as if the functional loss were caused by any of the other factors cited above. In evaluating the severity of a joint disability, VA must determine the overall functional impairment due to these factors.

The Board will now summarize the relevant evidence of record during the period on appeal.

A March 2023 private physical therapy evaluation notes that the Veteran scored a 37.5 percent on the Oswestry low back disability questionnaire. According to the report, this signified "high disability;" however, the report did not provide results from any ROM testing.

In April 2023, the Veteran sought emergent care for low back pain radiating to his right posterior leg. He reported that the pain was so severe that he could not walk and had been using a motorized scooter.  He denied any bowel or bladder dysfunction, saddle paresthesias, numbness, tingling, and/or weakness to the upper or lower extremities. An examination revealed tenderness to palpation over the lumber spine and into the right SI joint. X-rays
3 private physical therapy evaluation notes that the Veteran scored a 37.5 percent on the Oswestry low back disability questionnaire. According to the report, this signified "high disability;" however, the report did not provide results from any ROM testing.

In April 2023, the Veteran sought emergent care for low back pain radiating to his right posterior leg. He reported that the pain was so severe that he could not walk and had been using a motorized scooter.  He denied any bowel or bladder dysfunction, saddle paresthesias, numbness, tingling, and/or weakness to the upper or lower extremities. An examination revealed tenderness to palpation over the lumber spine and into the right SI joint. X-rays showed mild to moderate degenerative changes with no vertebral body height loss. The clinician noted lumbar radiculopathy (as indicated above, the Veteran is already service-connected for right lower extremity radiculopathy which is not the subject of this appeal).

In May 2023, the Veteran filed a VA Form 21-526EZ requesting an increased rating for his back disability. He stated, "My back injury has gotten much worse over time." In a second filing on the same date, he requested service connection for severe joint pain/misalignment and gait misalignment "Under Lower Lumbar 'Back.'" These additional claims were treated as part of the Veteran's increased rating claim for his service-connected back disability.  

The Veteran attended a July 2023 VA examination at which he was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis and right lower extremity radiculopathy. He reported current symptoms of right-sided pain with use, numbing, and a dull ache. Also, he stated that if he continued to work or if he "tweak[ed]" it, the pain would progress to the left side. Additionally, he stated that "a couple times a year," he had to be "in the hospital getting injections" due to the pain. Further, the Veteran described experiencing right testicle pain when his back pain was at its worst. Even more, he reported experiencing flare ups two to three times a year during which he could not move due to pain. He noted that these flare ups lasted several weeks in duration.  Note, although the Veteran reported taking medication, he did not report being under the ameliorative effects of such medication during his examination.

Initial ROM testing was abnormal which contributed to functional loss. Specifically, forward flexion was shown to be limited to 75 degrees with a combined ROM of 220 degrees (this is consistent with a 10 percent rating). The examiner also noted pain in flexion and extension; pain in weight-bearing, nonweight-bearing, and active motion which resulted in functional loss; and localized tenderness or pain on palpation. 

Passive ROM testing was not performed as it was medically contraindicated, and the Veteran was unable to perform repetitive use testing due to fear of pain. 

Although not examined immediately after repeated use over time or during a flare up, the examiner indicated that the procured evidence (statements from the Veteran) suggested that pain would limit functional ability. Estimated in ROM, forward flexion would be limited to 75 degrees with a combined ROM of 220 degrees.

Notably, the examiner indicated that there was evidence of muscle spasm severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour (this is consistent with a 20 percent rating). 

Muscle strength testing showed active movement against some resistance, bilaterally, in ankle plantar flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, and great toe extension. Also, the Veteran reported occasional use of a mobility scooter. 

No other pertinent findings were noted. That is, there was no evidence of interference with sitting or standing, swelling, deformity, disturbance of locomotion, less or more movement than normal, muscle atrophy or atrophy of disuse (note, the examiner noted atrophy due to an unrelated medical condition), instability of station, ankylosis or its functional equivalent, or radiculopathy (other than right lower extremity radiculopathy for which the Veteran is already service connected). 

Regarding functional impact, the examiner noted that the Veteran had missed two to four weeks of work in the last 12 months due to his condition. 

In a separate report, the examiner opined that the Veteran's gait misalignment was a direct result of his service-connected back disability. 

In September 2024, along with his NOD, the Veteran submitted private medical records. Unfortunately, the records related to his back treatment were not relevant to the Board's inquiry because they detailed treatment dates outside the period on appeal. That notwithstanding, the Board notes that the records still failed to support a rating in excess of 20 percent. For example, a May 2024 treatment record noted a combined ROM of 220 degrees (this
). 

Regarding functional impact, the examiner noted that the Veteran had missed two to four weeks of work in the last 12 months due to his condition. 

In a separate report, the examiner opined that the Veteran's gait misalignment was a direct result of his service-connected back disability. 

In September 2024, along with his NOD, the Veteran submitted private medical records. Unfortunately, the records related to his back treatment were not relevant to the Board's inquiry because they detailed treatment dates outside the period on appeal. That notwithstanding, the Board notes that the records still failed to support a rating in excess of 20 percent. For example, a May 2024 treatment record noted a combined ROM of 220 degrees (this is consistent with a 10 percent rating) yet the clinician failed to indicate at which point the Veteran experienced pain during testing.  

Having considered the relevant evidence, the Board finds that a rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted. At no time during the period on appeal was the Veteran's forward flexion shown to be functionally limited to 30 degrees or less. Additionally, his back disability was not shown to result in favorable or unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine, unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine, or the functional equivalent.

While the Veteran's back is clearly painful, he was still able to demonstrate extensive range of motion in his back, which exceeds the limitations necessary for a rating in excess of 10 percent.  However, given the pain, and flare-ups, the Board believes that the AOJ was correct to increase the Veteran's back rating to 20 percent, but at no time was the range of motion in the Veteran's back estimated to be so limited to warrant a higher 40 percent rating.

Accordingly, the claim is denied.  

 

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Graison-McBride, Kimberly F.

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.