CAVC Case 00-1889: Hip
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · January 28, 2002 · FARLEY
This is a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — the federal court that reviews Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions, one level above the Board. Court decisions can vacate, reverse, or affirm what the Board did.
Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.
Dependent add-ons start at a 30% rating. Child-only and dependent-parent rates: see the full 2026 pay chart.
2026 base rates, all ratings (veteran alone)
| Rating | Monthly (2026, incl. 2.8% COLA) |
|---|---|
| 10% | $180.42 |
| 20% | $356.66 |
| 30% | $552.47 |
| 40% | $795.84 |
| 50% | $1,132.90 |
| 60% | $1,435.02 |
| 70% | $1,808.45 |
| 80% | $2,102.15 |
| 90% | $2,362.30 |
| 100% | $3,938.58 |
Conditions Claimed
Referral disclosure: VetAid earns a referral fee if you become a paying REE Medical client through this link — it helps keep this site free. REE Medical provides paid medical evidence; it is not a law firm, VSO, or claims agent, and VetAid has not independently verified its services. VSOs and VA-accredited representatives will help you file your claim at no cost, and no one can guarantee a rating increase.
Issues on Appeal
HipRespiratoryEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the decision on appeal, the Board concluded that: (1) The criteria for an initial evaluation in excess of 30% for interstitial lung disease had not been met; (2) the veteran did not incur nicotine dependence in service; and (3) the March 1979 RO decision did not contain CUE.
With respect to nicotine dependence, the Board noted that "the determination of whether a veteran is dependent on nicotine is a medical issue.
The Board concluded that a preponderance of the evidence, presumably the absence of medical evidence in combination with the Board's own analysis, was against a finding that the veteran became nicotine dependent while in the service.
Increased Rating for Interstitial Lung Disease The Court reviews a Board determination concerning an initial disability evaluation (or rating) under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
Factual findings by the Board will not be overturned by this Court unless they are "clearly erroneous.
Under the “clearly erroneous” standard, "if there is a 'plausible' basis in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA, even if this Court might not have reached the same factual determinations, [the Court] cannot overturn them.
The Board must provide a "written statement of [its] findings and conclusions, and the reasons or bases for those findings and conclusions, on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record.
We cannot proceed to review the decision on appeal because the Board failed to address medical evidence that the veteran's COPD was likely a result of cigarette smoking, R.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Preponderance Against|Cue
Find Similar Precedent for Your Claim
VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.
Run my claim through VetAid →