CAVC Case 07-0693: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2007-03-02 · LANCE, 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 ConnectionEffective DateTDIUIncreased Rating
Why It Was Decided This Way
In that decision,the Board determined that the ratings assigned (for various time periods)for the appellant's knee conditions were appropriate and that increased ratings were,therefore, not warranted.
The Board found that the effective date assigned for the appellant's back disorder would have significant impact on the appellant's entitlement to an earlier effective date for a grant of total disability due to individual unemployment (TDIU),a claim that was pending before the Board.
The Board found that,because of the potential impact on the TDIU claim,the TDIU claim was inextricably intertwined with the lower back claim such that it must be held in abeyance until the issue of [an] earlier effective date for a back disorder is resolved.
Disability Rating for Instability from May 17,1991,to September 14, 1999 The appellant argues that the Board erred in failing to assign him a higher disability rating between May 1991 and September 1999 because the evidence shows that he suffered from instability and DJD that entitled him to a higher rating.
The Secretary concedes that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of its reasons or bases for concluding that the appellant's right knee was properly rated as 20%disabling between May 1991 and September 1999.
The Secretary concedes that the Board failed to consider evidence that the appellant's knees required bracing or support as the result of possible instability.
The Board concluded that, between May 1991 and September 14, 1999,the appellant was never found to have any subluxation or instability,such that a rating would be warranted under [DC 5257].
The Secretary concedes that the Board failed to consider that the appellant testified using knee braces since 1991.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Preponderance Against
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 →