CAVC Case 03-1021: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 15, 2006 · KASOLD

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

Affirmed / Vacated / Dismissed / Remanded

Decision Date

September 15, 2006

Judge

KASOLD

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSD Back Skin TDIU Eye Radiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

PTSDBackSkinTDIUEyeRadiculopathy

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the first decision (Decision 1), the Board denied an effective date earlier than April 20, 1993, for the award of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU).

at 168, 177-81, 183), and in April 1991, the Board denied his claim for service connection for PTSD (R.

In May 2000, the Board issued two separate decisions: in the first decision, the Board denied an effective date earlier than April 1993 for the award of service connection for PTSD and for a TDIU rating (R.

at 1164-73) and, in the second decision, the Board determined that the April 1991 Board decision denying service connection for PTSD was not the product of CUE (R.

In addition, with regard to the effective date for the assignment of a TDIU rating, the Board noted that PTSD was Mr.

Canady argues that he is entitled to an earlier effective date for his award of service connection for PTSD and for the assignment of a TDIU rating, and that the Board erred by dismissing his request for revision.

Decision 1 – Effective Date A Board determination of the proper effective date is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the "clearly erroneous" standard set forth in 38 U.

A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a 5 mistake has been committed.

Authorities Cited

Ahmed v. DragovichAllday v. BrownAnderson v. CityAndre v. PrincipiAndrews v. NicholsonAnglin v. WestBarnett v. BrownBerke v. BlochBertucelli v. CarrerasBragg v. ReedBustos v. WestCampbell v. MullinsChicago v. Equitable Life Assurance SocCrippen v. BrownDe Tie v. Orange CountyElfenbein v. GulfElmore v. LloydFugo v. DerwinskiGallegos v. PrincipiGilbert v. DerwinskiGray v. CountyHoskins v. PoelstraHuston v. PrincipiJarrell v. NicholsonJordan v. NicholsonJordan v. PrincipiKasey v. Molybdenum CorpLamb v. PrincipiLink v. WestLivesay v. Principi

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 20.101(a) (2005) (same)38 CFR 20.140038 CFR 20.1404 (2000)38 CFR 20.1404 (2005)38 CFR 20.1404(b)38 CFR 20.1404(b) (2005)38 CFR 20.140938 CFR 20.1409 (2005)38 CFR 20.1409(b)38 CFR 3.155 (2005)38 CFR 3.155(a)38 CFR 3.400 (2005)38 CFR 4.16(a) (2005)38 USC 50138 USC 5110(a)38 USC 5904(c)(2)38 USC 7103(c)38 USC 7104(c)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7105(a)

Denial Type

Duty To Assist|Cue

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 →