CAVC Case 02-793: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 14, 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
BackHearing LossSkinTDIUEyeRadiculopathy
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
BackHearing LossSkinTDIUEyeRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
As to the applicable definition of blindness, the Board concluded as follows: The argument has also been made that the applicable regulatory provisions of 38 U.
With regard to the veteran's SMC claim, the Board determined that the requirements for SMC at a rate other than that which the appellant was then assigned had not been met because the veteran was not blind in the left eye.
As to the veteran's claim for a TDIU rating, the Board noted that the veteran had only one service-connected disability, rated as 30% disabling, which did not meet the rating threshold necessary to be awarded a TDIU rating.
In denying an extraschedular rating, the Board found that, although "the veteran [was then] unemployable, .
Contentions of Parties On February 27, 2003, the appellant filed a brief in which he argues that the May 2002 Board decision should be reversed and the matters remanded because the Board erred by applying 38 C.
Definition of Blindness for Section 1160 Purposes Regarding the appellant's argument that the Board erred in utilizing § 4.
383(a)(1), quite clear: If the impairment of a veteran's vision would result in a 100% rating if the impairment in both eyes were service connected but the impairment in one eye actually was not service connected, then VA is to pay compensation as though the non-service-connected vision impairment in one eye were service connected.
The assignment of a rating to a particular disability is a question of fact, which is reviewable in this Court under the "clearly erroneous" standard set forth in 38 U.
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 →