CAVC Case 02-2259: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 19, 2005 · IVERS, 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

Rating Married Children

per month · per year, tax-free

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Reversed / Remanded / Vacated

Decision Date

April 19, 2005

Judge

IVERS, Chief Judge

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Back Cervical Knee Shoulder Hip Eye Arthritis

Issues on Appeal

BackCervicalKneeShoulderHipEyeArthritis

Why It Was Decided This Way

In an April 1977 decision, the Board found that his multiple-joint arthritis, other than that of his left knee, was not incurred while in service, aggravated by service, or caused by an in-service disease or injury, and the Board denied his appeal.

Padgett's right-hip disorder was caused by age-related degenerative arthritis and was not related to his in-service left-knee injury or a gait abnormality and (2) his left-knee disability did not aggravate or cause an increase in severity of his right-hip arthritis.

The Board found that the opinions of the private physicians were "equivocal and apparently unsubstantiated [in] nature.

The Board found that the medical evidence of record did not indicate a nexus between an in-service injury to Mr.

Padgett's right-hip injury was not related to his service-connected left-knee disability.

Padgett argues, inter alia, that (1) the Board erred in relying on the June 1997 VA medical opinion rendered by Dr.

Padgett's claims file, did not discuss the positive medical evidence in the claims file, and did not consider the fact that Mr.

Padgett's right-hip condition is not related to an in-service injury or his service-connected left-knee disability is clearly erroneous because the private medical opinions of record provide the required etiological relationship for service connection to be awarded (Appellant's Br.

Authorities Cited

Allen v. BrownAnderson v. CityAndre v. PrincipiArdison v. BrownBailey v. DerwinskiBielby v. BrownBlack v. BrownBloom v. WestBowling v. PrincipiBurris v. PrincipiCaluza v. BrownCastro v. PrincipiChisem v. BrownDisabled American Veterans v. SecretaryElkins v. GoberEspiritu v. DerwinskiGardner v. BrownGardner v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGonzalez v. PrincipiGreen v. DerwinskiGriffin v. Oceanic ContractorsGuerrieri v. BrownHensley v. WestHersey v. DerwinskiHicks v. BrownIn Disabled American Veterans v. SecretaryKing v. StMariano v. PrincipiOrtiz v. Principi

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.9 (2004)38 CFR 19.9(a)(2) (2000)38 CFR 19.9(a)(2) (2002)38 CFR 20.90138 CFR 20.901 (1999)38 CFR 20.901 (a)38 CFR 20.901(a)38 CFR 20.901(a) (1999)38 CFR 20.901(a) (2002)38 CFR 20.901(a) (2004)38 CFR 20.901(b)38 CFR 20.90338 CFR 20.903(a)38 CFR 20.903(a) (2004)38 CFR 3.102 (2004)38 CFR 3.103(a)38 CFR 3.303(a) (2004)38 CFR 3.304(d) (2004)38 CFR 3.310(a) (2004)38 CFR 3.328(d) (2004)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against

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 →