CAVC Case 09-3092: Psychiatric

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2009-08-10 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

per month ·  per year, tax-free

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)
RatingMonthly (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
See your full claim picture — free
Outcome
Vacated / Affirmed / Reversed
Decision Date
2009-08-10
Judge
MOORMAN, Judge
Service Era
March 1962 to September 1962

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricBackCervicalRespiratoryEyeArthritis

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

The appellant ,appeals an August 10,2009, Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision that determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for a low back disability and denied entitlement to service connection for schizoaffective disorder,a colon disability,an eye disability,and a lung disability,to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

The appellant ,the Board determined in October 2003 that the appellant.

In June 2009,VA issued a Supplemental SOC (SSOC),which stated that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen a claim of service connection for a back disorder and denied entitlement to service connection for schizoaffective disorder,colon disorder,eye disorder,herbicide exposure residuals,and a lung disorder,including COPD.

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.

A finding of service connection,or no service connection,is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard in 38 U.

A factual finding 'is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

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.

Finally,the Board addressed whether the appellant has established a nexus between an in- service disease or injury and his current disabilies.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownAshley v. DerwinskiBerger v. BrownButler v. PrincipiCaluza v. BrownCrain v. PrincipiDaves v. NicholsonDe Perez v. DerwinskiElkins v. WestEvans v. WestFrankel v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiHeuer v. BrownHickson v. WestHilkert v. WestJones v. WestKent v. NicholsonMariano v. PrincipiPrillaman v. PrincipiSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Buchanan v. NicholsonSee Clarke v. NicholsonSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Dyment v. WestSee Jandreau v. NicholsonSee Molloy v. BrownSee Swann v. BrownSee Washington v. Nicholson

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against

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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.

VetAid is a free veterans claims tool, not a VA-accredited representative — it does not file anything with VA for you, and it works alongside your accredited VSO, claims agent or attorney. About VetAid