CAVC Case 04-0233: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · July 13, 2006 · MOORMAN
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
DepressionBackKneeHearing LossTinnitusEye
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
DepressionBackKneeHearing LossTinnitusEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board found that "the veteran has failed to submit, and the Board is unable to obtain (short of finding a physician who witnessed both accidents) persuasive and competent evidence linking the current right[-]knee disability and residuals of a left [-]leg injury to the service[-]connected bilateral hearing loss.
Additionally, the Board found no merit in the appellant's argument that his disability rating for hearing loss and his disability rating for depression should be added together, rather than combined under the table in § 4.
Roper contends that the Board erred by concluding that he was not entitled to a 100% rating for his service-connected hearing loss and his secondary-service-connected depression.
With regard to direct service-connection claims the evidence must sufficiently establish a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.
This nexus requirement is clearly ascertainable from the statutory basic entitlement language.
However, the basic entitlement provisions do not set forth an answer as to whether the nexus requirement can be stretched to encompass disability benefits for conditions that result not directly from service, but as a result of the service-connected condition.
The Board's decision regarding the finding 11 of secondary service connection is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review set forth in 38 U.
Under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review, the Court must set aside a finding of material fact when, after reviewing the record as a whole, it is "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus
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 →