CAVC Case 09-0929: Knee
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2008-11-20 · MOORMAN, 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 Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant's symptomatology relating to plantar fasciitis was not related to cold exposure in service,but that his sensitivity with associated parathesias and numbness is secondary to the cold injury which he suffered while in Germany in 1955.
In October 2003,the Board found that the clinical evidence of record did not demonstrate that the appellant.
7104(d)(1),for its denial of service connection for residuals of a bilateral foot injury due to cold weather exposure: First,he contends that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for concluding that the statements and testimony of the appellant were less than credible.
2 Second,the appellant also argues that the Board's finding that 2 Because the appellant does not present any argument directed to VA's duty to assist,the Court considers the appellant to have abandoned any duty-to-assist argument on appeal.
6 his current foot disability was not service connected was clearly erroneous because the Board improperly substituted its judgment for the favorable uncontroverted medical examiners'opinions of record and improperly rejected evidence in his favor.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
The credibility of the appellant is critical in this case because the majority of evidence presented in the appellant's favor,including all the medical nexus opinions of record,is derived solely from the appellant's testimony and statements as to the asserted in-service occurrence of frostbite.
Establishing service connection generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1)a current disability; (2)an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury;and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|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 →