CAVC Case 09-3727: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2009-06-10 · 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
DepressionBackKneeHearing LossTinnitusAnkleEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
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 ConnectionReopenKnee ConditionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
Lay Testimony The appellant argues that the Board failed to consider credible lay evidence with regard to his service-connection claims for left knee disability,depression,back pain,tinnitus,and hearing loss.
303(b)(2010),continuity of symptomatology may be established if a claimant can demonstrate (1)that a condition was noted in service,(2)there is postservice evidence of the same symptomatology,and (3)medical or, in certain circumstances,lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the postservice symptomatology.
Review of the decision on appeal also reveals that the Board found that the appellant was not competent to opine on the issue of whether his current left knee disability was related to service or to his service-connected right foot condition because the relationship involved a question of medical causation that the appellant was not competent to answer based on education, training,or experience.
For the same reason,the Board found that the appellant was not competent to opine on the issue of whether his current depression was related to his service-connected residuals.
While the Board found the appellant was competent to describe exposure to loud noise during service as a metal worker and considered the appellant's statements that he has had tinnitus for years, the Board found no in-service records showing complaints or treatment for tinnitus during service or for many years after.
The Board found the absence of medical evidence of continuity of symptomatology outweighs the Veteran's statements of continuity.
488, 496 (1997)( [I]n a merits context the lack of evidence of treatment may bear on the credibility of the evidence of continuity.
As for the appellant's back pain,the appellant contends that the Board found the appellant's lay statements regarding continuity of low back symptomatology not credible because the statements were not corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence, contrary to Buchanan ,451 F.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →