CAVC Case 00-669: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · August 7, 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
BackCervicalSkinHeartEyeRadiculopathy
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
BackCervicalSkinHeartEyeRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the March 2000 BVA decision here on appeal, the Board found that, "[p]ursuant to [G.
The Board noted: "The veteran and the appellant are advised that were they to file a timely appeal of this claim to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) the Court would not necessarily be bound by [G.
at 8); and (4) the Board erred by failing to address the appellant's other conditions in order to "determine whether these conditions are 'forms and manifestations of spina bifida'" (Br.
To comply with this requirement, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran.
The Board erred in reaching this unsubstantiated conclusion.
546, 553 (1996) (en banc) (although "the Board is not required to accept the medical authority supporting a claim, it must provide its reasons for rejecting such evidence and, more importantly, must provide a medical basis other than its own unsubstantiated conclusions to support its ultimate decision").
The Board erred in its decision because it failed to recognize that, by the nature of the plain language of the statute, the range of spina bifida conditions covered is potentially not limited to "spina bifida" per se, but could, potentially, include other "forms and manifestations of spina bifida except for spina bifida occulta".
By making the bare conclusion that "forms and manifestations of spina bifida" means solely "spina bifida", the Board failed to give a reasoned argument explaining why OE is not a "form" or "manifestation" of spina bifida.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility
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 →