CAVC Case 01-944: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · January 13, 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
PTSDBackRespiratoryEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
STEINBERG, Judge: The appellant, through counsel, seeks review of an April 30, 2001, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) decision that found that an April 1994 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) decision was final and that no new and material evidence had been presented, after that VARO decision, to reopen his previously disallowed claim for VA "service connection for a soft[-]tissue lung mass due to exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides" during his service in Vietnam.
In the BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied reopening the appellant's claim and explained that, although the RO in the decision on appeal "implicitly reopened the claim and adjudicated the matter on the merits" (R.
The Board noted the duty-to-notify and duty-to-assist provisions of the VCAA (as codified at 38 U.
§ 5103A(f), and concluded that the VCAA "has not modified the longstanding requirement" that new and material evidence be submitted to reopen a claim.
The Board determined, inter alia, that the April 1994 RO decision was final and that none of the VA medical records and examination reports were "material", and thus denied reopening of the appellant's claim.
Contentions on Appeal In his principal brief, the appellant argues, inter alia, that the Board erred by (1) adjudicating his claim as a claim to reopen without notifying him beforehand of its intention to do so and allowing him the opportunity to present evidence and argument on that issue (Brief (Br.
3), and, thus, that VA had no duty to assist because the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim.
370 (2002), and asserts, inter alia, that, although the Board did not address the VCAA notice requirements, "VA adequately notified [the a]ppellant during an extensive and thorough Board hearing held on December 4, 2000 (R.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →