CAVC Case 01-1505: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 20, 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.
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
DepressionShoulderTBITDIU
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Chairman of the Board denied the motion in July 1995, and the appellant, in December 1995, filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) with the Court.
In the May 2001 decision on appeal, the Board denied an effective date prior to September 23, 1985, for the appellant's TDIU rating.
The Board noted that, "[a]lthough the Board's August 1994 decision, which determined that the correct effective date for TDIU was September 23, 1985, became final, applicable law provides that a claim which is the subject of a prior final decision may nevertheless be reopened upon presentation of new and material evidence.
The Board concluded that, "[e]ven if the appellant had submitted 'new and material' evidence regarding his claim, the effective date for the grant of a TDIU [rating] could never be earlier than the date [that] the RO received that claim to reopen .
157(b)(1) "is silent regarding the requirement to submit new and material evidence, and the Board erred by imposing upon [him] such a requirement.
at 1695) "was the predicate for the reopening of [the] issue [of] the assignment of an effective date without the need for the submission of any further new and material evidence .
400(q)(ii), the Secretary asserts that, "[a]bsent a finding of CUE in the August 1994 [BVA] decision, the Board determined that the proper analysis for determining entitlement to an earlier effective date was through the submission of new and material evidence.
Because there are "only two exceptions to the rule of finality," the appellant was left with only two means by which to overcome the finality of that decision: (1) Reopening based on the presentation of new and material evidence or (2) CUE.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|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 →