BVA Case 07-3529: Back
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · NEWMAN
Conditions Claimed
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 |
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
BackSkinDiabetesEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board found that the available service medical records did not show any diagnosis of gallbladder cancer.
The Board determined that the “VA made all efforts to notify and to assist the appellant with regard to the evidence obtained, the evidence needed, the responsibilities of the parties in obtaining the evidence, and the general notice of the need for any evidence in the appellant’s posses- sion.
The Board concluded, however, that case law does not lower the legal standard for proving a claim for ser- vice connection.
The Board concluded that “[t]he initial manifestations of these disorders, 40 or more years following service separation, are too remote in time from service to support the claim that these condi- tions are related to service absent objective evidence to the contrary.
In denying service con- nection for accrued benefits and for the cause of death, the Board stated that it considered the benefit-of-the- doubt rule but concluded it could not apply since the preponderance of the evidence was against the veteran’s claim.
The Veterans Court reviewed the factual findings of the Board in detail and found that they were not clearly erroneous.
McFadden’s argument that the Board failed to take into account all of the favorable evidence.
The court also concluded that there is no heightened benefit of the doubt MCFADDEN v.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist
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 →