CAVC Case 00-499: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 14, 2004 · KRAMER, Chief Judge

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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

Rating Married Children

per month · per year, tax-free

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded

Decision Date

September 14, 2004

Judge

KRAMER, Chief Judge

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSD Depression Psychiatric Back Hearing Loss Tinnitus Skin Heart Hypertension

Issues on Appeal

PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackHearing LossTinnitusSkinHeart

Why It Was Decided This Way

The appellant also contends that a remand is required because VA failed to adjudicate the appellant's claim for non-service-connected pension.

The Board decision on appeal did not address the issue of non-service-connected pension.

Claim for Non-Service-Connected Pension The appellant contends that the Board failed to adjudicate his claim for non-service- connected pension and that, therefore, a remand is necessary so that the Board may adjudicate the claim in accordance with 38 U.

Claim for Service Connection for Various Disorders Secondary to In-Service Tobacco Use The appellant contends that VA failed to adjudicate his informal claim for service connection for disabilities related to his tobacco use in service, and that therefore, a remand is required to permit VA to adjudicate his claim.

The Board noted the following: The Board observes that the RO in December 1997 denied entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart disease due to the use of tobacco products and notified the veteran of that determination.

Since the appellant's claim for service connection for various disorders secondary to in-service tobacco usage was not in appellate status before the Board, the Board was not required to address, and did not address, that claim.

Earlier Effective Date for Service-Connected Tinnitus The appellant asserts that a remand is required regarding his claim for an earlier effective date for service connection for tinnitus.

at 48), the Board failed to consider a claim for compensation for depression secondary to the award for impotence .

Authorities Cited

Beyrle v. BrownCarpenter v. WestCrowe v. BrownFenderson v. WestGallegos v. PrincipiGarlejo v. BrownGodfrey v. BrownGreen v. BrownHamilton v. BrownHensley v. WestHolland v. GoberIsenbart v. BrownJohnston v. BrownKilpatrick v. PrincipiMorgan v. BrownPhillips v. BrownRowell v. PrincipiSabonis v. BrownSee Elkins v. GoberSee Fenderson v. WestSlater v. BrownValiao v. PrincipiVelez v. West

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.2638 CFR 20.20138 CFR 20.201 (2003)38 CFR 20.20238 CFR 20.302(a) (2003)38 CFR 3.3(a)(3) (2003)38 USC 101(29)38 USC 111038 USC 115138 USC 152138 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7105(b)38 USC 7105(b)(1)38 USC 7105(c)38 USC 7105(d)38 USC 7105(d)(1)38 USC 7105(d)(3)38 USC 725138 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7261(a)(1)

Denial Type

Duty To Assist|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 →