BVA Case 06-1327: Back

BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · MICHEL, Chief Judge

Outcome
Affirmed
Decision Date
Unknown
Judge
MICHEL, Chief Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackHearing LossHipEye

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
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

BackHearing LossHipEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

Fagan argues that the Veterans Court incorrectly interpreted the benefit of the doubt doctrine codified at 38 U.

§ 5107(b) and, as a result, improperly failed to consider statements in a medical examiner’s report as “evidence.

Fagan’s claim, determining that his further hearing loss was not service connected.

On January 5, 2006, the Board denied his claim for service connection.

Ultimately, the Board concluded that, “after considering all the evidence[,] .

the preponderance of the evidence [was] against [Mr.

Fagan appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing that the positive and negative evidence pertaining to a nexus between his further hearing loss and service was in equipoise and, therefore, the “Board was required to grant Mr.

Fagan the benefit of the doubt” pursuant to § 5107(b).

Authorities Cited

Boggs v. PeakeCapellan v. PeakeCromer v. NicholsonFagan v. PeakeFerguson v. PrincipiGroves v. PeakeHogan v. PeakeHolton v. ShinsekiJandreau v. NicholsonJordan v. NicholsonMaxson v. GoberOrtiz v. PrincipiPerman v. BrownShedden v. PrincipiSummers v. GoberVeterans v. Sec

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.10238 CFR 3.303(a)38 USC 111138 USC 5107(a)38 USC 5107(b)38 USC 7292(c)38 USC 7292(d)(1)38 USC 7292(d)(2)

Denial Type

No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Preponderance Against

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.