BVA Case 09-2334: 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
BackHipAnkleEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Anderson argues that the Veterans Court erred in finding no CUE because the Board failed to apply: (1) the presumption of soundness; and (2) the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine.
After further factual development of the record, in November 2006, the Board denied Ander- son’s claim for VA benefits based on his low back disorder.
Reaching this conclusion, the Board found that “there was medical evidence showing mild degenerative disc disease at the L5-S1 disc with spondylo- listhesis1 at that location.
The only medical evi- dence addressing the etiology of Anderson’s lower back disorder, however, “was a January 2003 VA medical examiner’s opinion stating that this pain may have been caused by a post-service, work-related back strain Ander- son suffered in 1999, but was not related to any in-service event.
Because the Board found this opinion highly probative, the Board concluded that the weight of the evidence was against Anderson’s claim that he suffered from an injury suffered while serving in the Army.
Responding to Anderson’s motion, in April 2009, the Board concluded that the November 2006 decision did not contain CUE.
The Board found that, while the private medical records referenced by Anderson were not mentioned in the November 2006 decision, the evidence contained in the private medical records was cumulative to the evidence the Board ex- pressly considered, ambiguous in some respects, and did not establish that Anderson had been born with spondylo- listhesis or spondylolysis.
The Board found that the record lacked “any evidence .
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|Cue
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 →