CAVC Case 06-1930: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2006-03-10 · HAGEL, 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
BackCervicalKneeHearing LossTinnitusShoulderSkinArthritisRadiculopathyHypertension
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 ConnectionReopenIncreased RatingHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
Because the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its denial of a disability rating in excess of 40% for degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine and sacroiliac joints, the Court will remand that matter for readjudication consistent with this decision.
The appellant's right elbow and left forefoot conditions and hearing loss, as well as entitlement to service connection for the 17 conditions noted above, are not clearly erroneous, the Court will affirm those portions of the March 2006 Board decision.
This letter informed him of the evidence necessary to establish entitlement to service connection, the necessity of submitting new and material evidence to reopen his previously disallowed claim for VA benefits for a positive tuberculous test and ulcers, and the evidence necessary to establish entitlement to higher disability ratings.
First, he argues that the Board erred by determining that the Secretary satisfied his duty to notify, specifically by failing to adequately notify him pursuant to the VCAA and failing to issue adequate Statements of the Case and Supplement Statements of the Case.
In this regard, he argues that the Board erred in finding that the Secretary fulfilled his duty to assist because the Secretary failed to release his entire claims file, as he had requested.
Next, he argues that the Board erred in denying entitlement to service connection for the 17 conditions noted above.
Third, he argues that the Board erred in failing to award him a higher disability rating for his service- connected lumbar spine condition, which he states is secondary to his degenerative joint and disc disease, lumbar spine and sacroiliac joints, with right sacral fracture; right elbow/ forearm degenerative joint disease; left forefoot degenerative joint disease.
He also argues that the Board erred in failing to award him entitlement to an extraschedular rating for his service-connected lumbar spine condition, specifically by finding that he did not suffer any frequent periods of hospitalization as a result of this condition.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
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 →