05-11 212, 05-11 212

Veteran served 1978–1982; service connection for chronic lumbar strain established in 1987; increased-rating claim filed October 1990.
Multiple VA and private exams and imaging over decades; objective findings show limited thoracolumbar motion but no ankylosis and largely normal neurological testing except episodic symptoms; some records note symptom exaggeration/embellishment.
Rating history: 20% for lumbar strain prior to March 9, 2012; increased to 40% effective March 9, 2012, based on range-of-motion testing.
VA examiners (2012–2017) diagnosed intervertebral disc disease/degenerative disc disease developing later and opined it was separate from or not aggravated by the service-connected lumbar strain.
Veteran receives/received narcotic pain medication; VA examiners found no evidence these medications rendered her unemployable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lumbar strain rating should exceed 20% before Mar 9, 2012	Veteran: back pain, functional loss, flare-ups, inability to work justify higher rating	VA: objective ROM and exam findings support only moderate limitation (20%); no ankylosis or neurological deficit to warrant higher rating	Denied — evidence supports 20% prior to Mar 9, 2012
Whether lumbar strain rating should exceed 40% from Mar 9, 2012 onward; and whether TDIU is warranted	Veteran: increased pain, limited standing/walking, narcotic use and functional limitations warrant >40% and TDIU	VA: 40% is highest schedular based on ROM; no ankylosis, intervertebral disc disease found unrelated to service-connected strain; evidence does not show unemployability due to service-connected conditions	Denied — 40% appropriate from Mar 9, 2012; TDIU denied on both schedular and extraschedular bases

Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016) (VA joint-exam adequacy requires specific ROM testing where possible)
DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995) (consider functional loss from pain, fatigability, incoordination)
Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011) (painful motion alone is not functional loss without restriction of normal movements)
Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008) (three-step inquiry for extraschedular ratings)
Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80 (1997) (when highest schedular ROM rating assigned, higher rating based on functional loss under certain regs is generally not available)
Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (competency of lay evidence for medical matters depends on nature of condition)