BVA Case 08-2236: PTSD
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · RADER, Chief Judge
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
PTSDBackShoulderHipSkinEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Richard Hime appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veter- ans Court”) holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) had fulfilled its statutory duty to assist and affirming the denial of his request to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for his hip bursitis.
It found that the other evidence, including the 1981 treatment notes, was new, but not material, as it did not address the relationship between the hip condition and HIME v.
The Board further found that the VA had satisfied its duty to assist pursuant to 38 U.
Hime argued to the Veterans Court that the VA had not satisfied its duty to assist him in obtaining VA records because the 1981 treatment notes, which he had obtained and submitted, were not in the original records obtained by the VA.
The Veterans Court rejected that argument, explain- ing that those notes simply stated that Hime had bursitis, but failed to provide any type of nexus evidence or estab- lish that there existed any other records not reasonably obtained by the VA.
The court therefore con- cluded that the VA had made reasonable efforts to assist Hime in obtaining medical records necessary to substan- tiate his claim and therefore fulfilled its duty to assist.
Hime argues that the VA made no attempt to obtain his physical therapy treatment records from the VA medical center even though he provided sufficient infor- mation indicating the existence of those records, and yet the Veterans Court found the duty to assist fulfilled.
Hime therefore contends that in affirming the Board’s decision, the Veterans Court necessarily held that the VA had no duty to assist him.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|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 →