CAVC Case 01-345: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 27, 2003 · 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
DepressionPsychiatricBackSkinEye
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
DepressionPsychiatricBackSkinEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
STEINBERG, Judge: The appellant, through counsel, seeks review of a November 17, 2000, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) that concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen his previously and finally disallowed claim for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.
The Court also determined that the appellant's mother's April 1979 statement to the Probate Court of the County of 2 Wayne, Michigan [hereinafter Probate Court], regarding the appellant's mental stability was not new and material evidence that the appellant had exhibited schizophrenia during service or within the one-year presumption period under 38 C.
A March 1991 RO decision confirmed the November 1988 RO decision and determined that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the veteran's service-connection claim.
In December 1994, the RO concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the veteran's claim for a mental disorder.
In a February 2000 SSOC, the RO, after reviewing various medical examination reports and the April 1998 VA examination report, indicated that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the veteran's claim.
In the November 17, 2000, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board determined that the veteran had not appealed the August 1988 RO decision and that "[t]he evidence associated with the claims folder since [that] decision .
After reviewing the evidence of record at the time of the August 1988 RO decision and the medical evidence subsequently submitted pursuant to the April 1997 Board remand, including the April 1998 VA psychiatric examination report, the Board determined that the evidence submitted by the veteran was "essentially cumulative of what was known at the time of the original August 1988 [RO] decision" in which "the central rationale behind the denial [of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder] was that [his paranoid schizophrenia] was not noted during service or within any one[-]year presumpti[on] period" and thus concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen his claim.
The Secretary argues in his brief that there is a plausible basis in the record for the Board's determination that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the appellant's service-connection claim.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
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 →