CAVC Case 01-1917: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 3, 2006 · GREENE, 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

Remanded / Affirmed / Vacated / Granted

Decision Date

March 3, 2006

Judge

GREENE, Chief Judge

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSD Depression Psychiatric Back Hip Heart TDIU Eye

Issues on Appeal

PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackHipHeartTDIUEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

§ 7261(b)(2), lead to the following conclusions: (1) In Dingess, the Board erred in not providing adequate notice on how to substantiate a TDIU claim, and, applying the rule of prejudicial error, the Court will vacate, in part, and affirm, in part, the October 2001 Board decision; and (2) in Hartman, the Board did not commit prejudicial error, and, as such, the Court will withdraw the July 22, 2004, single-judge order and will affirm the February 2002 Board decision.

Concerning the Secretary's statutory and regulatory notice obligations, the Board, after noting that the VCAA was enacted during the pendency of the appeal, concluded that "the notice and duty to assist provisions have been satisfied.

The Board denied his claim for a TDIU rating after determining that, under 38 C.

5 On November 8, 2002, the Court held that the Board erred when it failed to discuss adequately how VA had complied with the notice requirements in 38 U.

Thus, the Board finds that the duty to assist and duty to notify provisions of the VCAA have been fulfilled, including the revised regulatory provisions of 38 C.

As to the effective date assigned, the Board concluded that, although Mr.

The Board found that, other than the abandoned claim, "no formal or informal claim of service connection for PTSD was received prior to [Mr.

The Board concluded that although no additional VA medical records had been requested following his November 1986 statement, he nevertheless had abandoned his claim at that time.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownAmerica v. SecretaryAndrews v. NicholsonBarrera v. GoberBenitez v. PrincipiBeverly v. NicholsonBrannon v. WestCaffrey v. BrownCollaro v. WestConway v. PrincipiCook v. PrincipiDegmetich v. BrownDingess v. PrincipiFenderson v. WestFloyd v. BrownFord v. GoberGallegos v. PrincipiGilbert v. DerwinskiGonzales v. PrincipiGrantham v. BrownGreen v. DerwinskiHartman v. PrincipiHayre v. WestIn Shoemaker v. DerwinskiKing v. StKotteakos v. United StatesKutscherousky v. WestLivesay v. PrincipiMayfield v. NicholsonMoody v. Principi

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.29 (2005)38 CFR 19.37 (2005)38 CFR 3.1(p) (2005)38 CFR 3.10338 CFR 3.103(a) (1992)38 CFR 3.103(a) (2005)38 CFR 3.103(b)38 CFR 3.158(a) (2001)38 CFR 3.15938 CFR 3.159(b)38 CFR 3.159(b) (2005)38 CFR 3.159(b)(1)38 CFR 3.159(c) (2005)38 CFR 3.2600 (2005)38 CFR 3.321(b)(1)38 CFR 3.321(b)(1) (2001)38 CFR 3.400 (2000)38 CFR 3.400(b)(2)(i)38 CFR 4.138 CFR 4.1 (2005)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam

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 →