CAVC Case 04-181: Anxiety

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 31, 2006 · HAGEL

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 / Remanded
Decision Date
March 31, 2006
Judge
HAGEL
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

AnxietyBackHipSkinGIEye

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

AnxietyBackHipSkinGIEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

Kent, through counsel, appeals an October 8, 2003, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) decision that determined that he had not presented new and material evidence to reopen his previously and finally denied claims for service connection for psychogenic gastrointestinal reaction and psoriasis.

The RO also determined that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim for service connection for psychogenic gastrointestinal reaction.

On August 4, 1999, the RO determined that no new and material evidence had been submitted.

In April 2000, the RO determined that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claims for service connection for psoriasis and psychogenic gastrointestinal reaction.

The April 2001 letter did not advise the appellant that he needed new and material evidence to reopen his claims.

On October 8, 2003, in the decision here on appeal, the Board concluded that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claims for service connection for psoriasis and gastrointestinal psychogenic reaction.

In his brief, the appellant asserts that the Board did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision because it failed to consider and discuss whether recent changes in the interpretation of law pertaining to the presumption of soundness entitled him to a de novo readjudication of his claim for service connection for psychogenic gastrointestinal reaction.

Alternatively, he argues that changes in the interpretation of the law 4 surrounding the presumption of soundness constituted new and material evidence to reopen his claim for psychogenic gastrointestinal reaction.

Authorities Cited

Anglin v. WestBingham v. PrincipiCharles v. PrincipiCollaro v. WestCotant v. PrincipiCrowe v. BrownDingess v. NicholdsonFenderson v. WestHodge v. WestIn Routen v. WestJordan v. NicholsonJordan v. PrincipiMayfield v. NicholsonPelea v. NicholsonSee Caluza v. BrownSee Evans v. BrownSee Pelegrini v. PrincipiSee Quartuccio v. PrincipiSee Savage v. GoberSoyini v. DerwinskiSpencer v. BrownValiao v. PrincipiWagner v. Principi

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.114 (2005)38 CFR 3.156(a)38 CFR 3.156(a) (1999)38 CFR 3.159(b)(1) (2005)38 CFR 3.303(b)38 CFR 3.303(b) (2005)38 CFR 3.304(b)(2004)38 USC 111138 USC 5103(a)38 USC 510838 USC 5110(g)38 USC 7104(a)38 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7261(b)38 USC 7261(b)(2)

Denial Type

No Nexus|Not New Material

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.