CAVC Case 09-3437: Knee
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2009-06-29 · LANCE, 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
KneeHipAnkleArthritisHypertension
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 ConnectionKnee ConditionHip Condition
Why It Was Decided This Way
Credibility Determination In his brief,the appellant makes several arguments with respect to his claim of entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability.
First,he argues that the Board made a clearly erroneous finding of fact when it found that his statements concerning his hip were not credible and that the Court should,therefore,reverse the Board's credibility determination.
Second,he contends that even if reversal is not merited,that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its rejection of his lay statements.
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 that is favorable to the claimant.
Furthermore,in the context of a case involving missing records,the Board's duty to explain its findings and conclusions is heightened,along with its obligation to carefully consider the benefit of the doubt rule.
Under the benefit of the doubt rule,the Secretary is required to give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of the matter.
Due to the Veteran's conflicting statements ,the Board finds the Veteran's testimony lacking in credibility.
The Board found that this summary was evidence that the appellant had made inconsistent statements;however,the summary provides no further insight as to the source of this information and there is no surrounding context to explain whether the treating physician was referring to the date on which treatment started or to 5 the date that the patient gave for the start of his condition.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →