CAVC Case 06-0019: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2005-12-01 · MOORMAN, 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
BackCervicalShoulderHeadacheTBITDIUArthritisRadiculopathy
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
Back ConditionService ConnectionEffective DateTDIUIncreased Rating
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the December 2005 decision here on appeal, the Board determined that there was no CUE in the 1992 RO decision that assigned a single evaluation for residuals of head and neck injury and that an initial disability rating above 20% under DC 5290 was not warranted for the cervical spine because the evidence did not show a greater disability than contemplated in the moderate limitation of motion in the rating schedule.
Specifically, he argues: (1) The Board failed to comply with the April 2005 remand instructions in that it did not address 38 C.
25(b); and (2) the Board failed to support its finding that a 1992 VA neurology examination reported that the appellant's headaches were his only disabling manifestation, when, in fact the VA neurologist diagnosed, in part, residual whiplash to the neck.
25(b) is and was only permitted for separate disabilities, and the Board found that the medical evidence did not undebatably show the existence of a separate neck disability, the Board adequately addressed the CUE claim, notwithstanding its failure to address the regulation.
In addressing the CUE claim, the Board noted that the evidence that was before the RO at the time of its decision included the SMRs and the September 1992 VA neurology and spine examinations.
The Board concluded that the evidence before the RO in 1992 did not compel a finding of service connection separately for a cervical spine condition.
The Board found that it was not CUE to read the September 1992 neurology examination as containing a single diagnosis and that because there was no clearly articulated diagnosis of a current cervical spine disability .
The Board found that the regulations supported the RO's determination to assign a single rating reflecting the diagnosis of post-concussion headache.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Inadequate Exam|Cue
Find Similar Decisions 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 →