CAVC Case 09-2059: Hypertension
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2009-05-13 · 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 Board found that the appellant's current kidney condition was not present in service or within one year of discharge and was not related to service.
Accordingly,the Board denied service connection for nephrosclerosis,claimed as kidney failure.
The Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board failed to adequately consider and state its reasons or bases for rejecting the application of the benefit of the doubt rule;clearly erred in concluding that the evidence was not in equipoise or lacked sufficient medical information to decide the case;failed to discharge the duty to assist by relying on an inadequate medical opinion;and impermissibly relied on its own medical judgment to deny the appellant's claim.
The Secretary argues the Board's 2009 decision should be affirmed because the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or bases for not applying the benefit of the doubt doctrine;the Board did not clearly err in determining that the evidence was not in equipoise;the February 2009 medical opinion was not inadequate; 2 and the Board did not impermissibly rely on its own medical judgment.
Duty To Assist The appellant argues that the VA nephrologist,in his 2009 medical opinion,failed to provide sufficient reasons and bases for his conclusion.
This argument is more properly discussed in conjunction with the appellant's additional contention that the Secretary failed in his duty to assist by providing an inadequate medical opinion.
The Secretary's duty to assist includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on the claim.
Where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of the appellant's disability,VA's fulfillment of its duty to assist requires a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination that considers the appellant's prior medical history to assure a fully informed opinion.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →