CAVC Case 07-1396: Cervical
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2007-03-21 · 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
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
Service ConnectionIncreased RatingHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
Because the Board erred in determining that VA fulfilled its duty to assist by providing an adequate medical examination, the Court will vacate that portion of the March 2007 Board decision that denied entitlement to service connection for neck, right shoulder, right elbow, and arm conditions and remand the matter for further development and readjudication consistent with this decision.
The appellant's neck condition, the Board determined that [p]ain alone, without a diagnosed or identifiable underlying malady or condition, does not in and of itself constitute a disability for which service connection may be granted.
The Board also explained VA's duty to assist, including when VA is required to provide a medical examination, but determined that those requirements were not met in this case because the appellant.
[and] there is no evidence that suggests a nexus between service and the alleged disorders at issue.
The appellant contends that the Board erred in finding that VA fulfilled its duty to assist in obtaining evidence to substantiate his claim for a neck condition.
The appellant argues that the Board erred by rendering medical conclusions that were unsubstantiated by the medical evidence of record.
The appellant also argues that the Board erred in its determination that he was not entitled to an extraschedular rating for his service-connected ear disabilities.
The appellant also contends that the Board decision lacks adequate reasons and bases for its determinations concerning VA's duty to assist and entitlement to an extraschedular rating.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →