CAVC Case 02-0682: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · · FARLEY
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
BackDiabetesGIEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
In January 1994, VA issued a Statement of the Case (SOC), which noted, among other things, that on January 28, 1993, the veteran was not service connected, that the veteran had “refused to sign acknowledgment” that his referral to MMC would be at his own expense, and that on January 29, 1993, the MMC “contacted Fee Basis regarding payment of veteran’s hospitalization” and the “hospital was informed [that] the veteran was not eligible for payment of private hospital costs.
On remand, the chief medical officer at the AM VAMC determined in July 1997 and January 1998 that the veteran’s hospital admission for pancreatic pseudocysts was not related to a service-connected disability.
In a June 1999 BVA decision, the Board concluded that the veteran’s claim of entitlement to payment by VA of unauthorized medical expenses was not well grounded.
In the January 17, 2002, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied the veteran's claim for entitlement to payment of medical expenses incurred during hospitalization at MMC from January 28 to February 3, 1993.
The Board found that, “[a]t the time of the hospitalization, service[ ]connection was in effect for epistaxis.
§ 1710, the Court should remand the matter to allow the Board, which did not address the appellant's eligibility for hospital care under section 1710, to make specific findings of fact in that regard in the first instance.
The appellant also argues that regardless of any change brought about by the VBA, there is no plausible basis for the Board's determinations as to a medical emergency and VA authorization, and that those determinations should be reversed as clearly erroneous.
It is undisputed that the treatment he received at MMC was not related to epistaxis, but that was not disqualifying under section 1710(a) in 1993 at the time of the hospitalization.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not Service Connected
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 →