09-22 963, 09-22 963

Veteran served 1976–1988; service connection for degenerative disc disease (DDD) with degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the lumbar spine was granted with an initial 10% rating effective October 4, 2004, and an increased 20% effective June 1, 2009.
Board previously awarded service connection effective November 3, 1988, and remanded twice for development of an increased-initial-rating claim.
Multiple VA and private examinations (2003–2017) documented intermittent pain on motion, forward flexion measurements varying mostly between 60°–80°, occasional spasms/guarding but no consistent abnormal gait or spinal contour, and IVDS found only at the 2017 exam without incapacitating episodes requiring prescribed bed rest.
Applicable rating criteria changed during the appeal (new IVDS rules effective 9/23/2002 and new spine rating formula effective 9/26/2003); Board applied the version(s) most favorable for each period.
Board found competent medical exam evidence outweighed the Veteran’s lay reports and concluded no higher rating was supported by objective findings for any relevant period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether entitlement to >10% rating prior to 6/1/2009 for lumbar DDD/DJD	Veteran contended symptoms/functional loss justify higher rating	VA relied on exam findings (flexion ≥70°, limited spasms/guarding) showing only 10% criteria met	Denied — evidence shows characteristic pain on motion but not greater functional loss
Whether entitlement to >20% rating on/after 6/1/2009 for lumbar DDD/DJD	Veteran argued progression/flare-ups warrant ≥40% or higher under new criteria	VA pointed to flexion typically ≥60°, no ankylosis, no incapacitating IVDS episodes	Denied — forward flexion no worse than 60° and no IVDS incapacitating episodes to justify >20%
Applicability of post-2002/2003 rating rules retroactively	Veteran sought benefit from revised rules where favorable	VA applied rule that revisions have stated effective dates and not retroactive; used most favorable version when applicable	Board applied appropriate rules by period and used the most favorable applicable criteria
Adequacy of VA development and reliance on exam evidence vs lay reports	Veteran and rep claimed further development or weight to lay testimony	VA asserted it satisfied VCAA and duty to assist; medical exams were competent and controlling	Board found VA complied with duties and gave greater weight to competent medical evidence

AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (clarifies effect of partial grant and continued Board jurisdiction)
Goodwin v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 128 (limits §5103(a) notice requirements after service connection is established)
Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (remand compliance standard)
Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (staging ratings; consider entire appeal period for initial rating disputes)
DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (requirement to consider functional loss from pain, weakness, fatigability)
Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (painful, unstable, or malaligned joints and minimum compensable ratings)
Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (pain constitutes functional loss only when it limits normal working movements)
Kuzma v. Principi, 341 F.3d 1327 (apply most favorable regulation version when multiple are potentially applicable)