CAVC Case 06-1464: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2006-02-01 · 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
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 ConnectionReopenKnee ConditionPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant had submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen a claim for service connection for a lower back disability; (2) denied that claim on the merits; (3) denied service connection for a knee disability; (4) denied service connection for an eye disorder; (5) denied service connection for an ear disorder; (6) denied service connection for a prostate disorder; and (7) remanded a claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to a VA regional office (RO) for further development.
The appellant raises three arguments on appeal: (1) that the Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his lower back claim on the merits; (2) that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of the reasons or bases for its decision; and (3) that the Board failed to ensure that VA provided him with notice and assistance pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub.
The appellant requested that VA reopen his claim for service connection for his lower back injury on the basis of new and material evidence, attaching evidence of his 1980 automobile accident.
The RO denied his request in July 1997, deciding that he had not presented any new and material evidence.
The appellant's knee, eye, ear, and prostate claims; however, the letter discussed primarily what is required to reopen a claim based on new and material evidence.
The appellant's 1980 automobile accident, which had not been before the RO in 1987, was new and material, and reopened the appellant.
Rather, he argues, having determined that there was new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the lower back claim, the Board was obliged to remand the matter to the RO for an initial adjudication on the merits followed, if necessary, by a Board review of the RO's decision.
In that case, the Court addressed an identical argument, that the Board, upon determining that there was new and material evidence requiring the claim to be reopened and readjudicated on the basis of all the evidence, was required to remand the claim to the RO for such readjudication in the first instance.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material
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 →