CAVC Case 01-2105: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 23, 2004 · GREENE
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
BackHeadacheSkinRespiratoryGIEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
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
BackHeadacheSkinRespiratoryGIEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
Because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision, the decision will be vacated and the matter remanded to the Board for further action.
In conclusion, the Board found that "the preponderance of the medical evidence fails to indicate that these disabilities are related to service or illness associated with service.
Rather, he contends that the matter should be remanded because (1) VA failed in its duty to assist by not obtaining a current VA medical examination that provided an opinion as to whether any of Mr.
APPLICABLE LAW The Board's determination of service connection is a finding of fact subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review set forth in 38 U.
A "finding is 'clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
For direct service connection to be awarded, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical evidence, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury.
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 claimant.
Gutierrez's Credibility The Board determined that Mr.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
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 →