CAVC Case 08-3802: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2008-07-17 · 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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackRespiratory
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 ConnectionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
Because the Board's findings that VA complied with its duty to assist and provided adequate medical examinations were not clearly erroneous,and because the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision,the Court will affirm the July 17,2008,Board decision.
In June 1970,the Board denied his claim,finding that [w]hile [ the appellant.
A November 1998 rating decision denied his claims for benefits for a sinus condition and a low back disorder because there was no record of treatment in service for these conditions,and denied his claim to reopen because he did not submit new and material evidence.
2 There is no new and material evidence,as the military documents provided by the Department of Army explained the reasons for early discharge (June 4,1994[,]rather than June 29,1994)was due to having served overseas.
The appellant's claim to reopen his previously denied claim for benefits for a psychiatric disorder because his wife and mother submitted lay statements regarding his emotional and mental state since service,which the Board found was new and material evidence.
The appellant's claims for benefits for a sinus condition and a low back disorder because it found that VA violated its duty to assist by not obtaining pertinent medical records and failing to provide adequate medical examinations.
The appellant's medical records, although not completely successful,were sufficient to satisfy VA's duty to assist.
The appellant's claims for benefits for a sinus disability,low back disorder,and psychiatric disorder because there was no evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of any of these conditions and no medical evidence of a nexus between service and his current disabilities.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
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 →