CAVC Case 02-885: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 29, 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.
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
BackKneeEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
, appeals through counsel an April 3, 2002, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision wherein the Board denied him entitlement to compensation under 38 U.
With respect to the Secretary's duty to assist, the Board concluded that the regional office had "secured the relevant VA medical records" and that, "[a]lthough it is possible that some VA medical records are outstanding, the Board finds that failing to obtain such evidence is not prejudicial.
First, he argues that the "Board's admission that '[a]lthough it is possible that some VA medical records are outstanding, the Board finds that failing to obtain such evidence is not prejudicial to the veteran,' constitutes a failure of the duty to assist [him] in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate his claim.
Finally, he argues that the Board erred insofar as it failed to make a finding as to whether the event in question was reasonably foreseeable, as, he contends, is required by 38 U.
Loving's final argument, the Secretary contends that that argument is "inapposite" because section 1151 "encompasses only events arising from the treatment itself [and] not from events that are not related to treatment.
Loving's argument that the Board decision on appeal should be vacated and the matter remanded because the Board erred insofar as it failed to make a finding as to whether the event in question was reasonably foreseeable, as is required by 38 U.
In the instant case, because the Board found that Mr.
We will now address whether the Board erred in concluding that Mr.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →