CAVC Case 04-0185: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 5, 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

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

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)
RatingMonthly (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
Vacated
Decision Date
June 5, 2006
Judge
GREENE, Chief Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeTinnitusEyeArthritisRadiculopathy

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

BackKneeTinnitusEyeArthritisRadiculopathy

Why It Was Decided This Way

McLendon argues that the Board erred in its evaluation of the evidence and that the Secretary failed to provide him with a VA medical examination pursuant to 38 U.

The Board concluded that a VA medical 3 examination was not warranted because the evidence of record was sufficient to decide the claim.

Ultimately, the Board found that the in-service injury had occurred but that it had "resolved without leaving chronic residual disability," and it denied Mr.

In addition, the Board found compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub.

Medical Examination Requirement In disability compensation claims, the Secretary must provide a VA medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.

465, 469 (1994) (holding that "competency" "is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while [weight and credibility] is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted"), or of factual competency, which is reviewed for clear error, see Sanders v.

525, 529 (1996) (holding that mental "competency" is a factual determination that the Court reviews under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review).

Moreover, a Board finding that the evidence preponderates for or against the presence of a current disability is a finding of fact, subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review, see Washington v.

Authorities Cited

Bagby v. DerwinskiCharles v. PrincipiCoburn v. NicholsonDuenas v. PrincipiEspiritu v. DerwinskiFalzone v. BrownFlash v. BrownForshey v. PrincipiGilbert v. DerwinskiGoss v. BrownHensley v. WestKent v. PrincipiKutscherousky v. WestMahl v. PrincipiMariano v. PrincipiMarrero v. GoberReonal v. BrownSanders v. BrownSee Best v. PrincipiSee Bloom v. WestSee Butts v. BrownSee Colvin v. DerwinskiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Lovelace v. DerwinskiSnyder v. PrincipiSwann v. BrownWashington v. NicholsonWells v. PrincipiWood v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.159(b) (2005)38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(i)38 USC 510338 USC 5103(a)38 USC 5107(b)38 USC 510938 USC 7261(a)(3)38 USC 7261(a)(4)38 USC 7261(c)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.