CAVC Case 02-1814: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 22, 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.
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
PsychiatricKneeHipSkinTDIUEyeArthritis
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
PsychiatricKneeHipSkinTDIUEyeArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
He contends that the Board erred in finding that he had received adequate notice under section 5103(a).
We hold that the Board erred by relying, in part, upon a Statement of the Case (SOC), an SSOC, and a previous Board decision to conclude that adequate section 5103(a) notice had been provided to Mr.
Overton, through counsel, appealed to the Board maintaining that the RO had failed to fulfill its statutory duty to assist 4 him and had failed to consider all relevant statutes and regulations in denying his claims.
Therefore, the Board finds that VA has met the notice and duty to assist provisions contained in the new law.
The Board's findings of fact are reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review in 38 U.
In determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, the Court is not permitted to substitute its own judgment for that of the Board on issues of material fact.
Here, the 2002 Board found: [C]ommunications from the VA to the veteran, including the August 1998 [SOC], the December 2000 Board decision, RO letters dated in December 2000 and May 2001, and the June 2002 [SSOC] have kept [Mr.
Because the Board's decision is based on an incorrect understanding of the law, and because the Board failed to make any individualized factual findings with regard to each of the documents the Board cited as informing Mr.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|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 →