BVA Case 08-3238: 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
BackKneeHipDiabetesEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Darlington was entitled to a medical nexus opinion.
The Board found that the appearance of O- S disease symptoms in service was a flare-up because there were no symptoms at entrance, no symptoms upon exit, and no symptoms for many years after service.
Darlington was not entitled to a medical nexus opinion on the relationship between his O-S disease and his claimed knee condition, because that rela- tionship was irrelevant without a finding that the O-S disease was aggravated by service.
Similarly, the Board found that the 2004 VA treatment records were irrelevant and did not obtain them, finding that the 2004 records were related to Mr.
The Board found that the 2004 records had no bearing on his claim.
DVA 4 decision that no medical nexus opinion was required, (2) that the Board did not err in considering the absence of treatment as evidence, and (3) that the Board’s conclusion that the 2004 records were not relevant was reasonable and supported by the record, such that the Board did not violate its duty to assist by not obtaining those records.
First, he argues that the Veterans Court misinterpreted the VA’s duty to assist by not conducting an assessment of whether additional assistance was necessary to substantiate his claim, and whether no reasonable possibility existed that additional assistance would aid in substantiating the claim.
The court observed that the Board found that the 2004 VA treatment records were irrelevant because they had no bearing on whether the veteran’s knee issues were con- nected to his service.
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 →