CAVC Case 09-4352: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2009-10-19 · 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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricCervicalHeadacheEyeHypertension
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 ConnectionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
of a head injury, a neck disability claimed as neck pain,vision loss,and slow speech,and found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claims for entitlement to service connection for headaches, a seizure disorder,adjustment problems with mixed emotions,and organic brain syndrome with memory loss.
The examiner diagnosed the appellant with primary open-angle glaucoma,visual field loss,cataracts,and hypertension,and opined that the visual field loss was at least as likely as not related to the appellant's head trauma in service.
The RO decision also declined to reopen the appellant's claims for headaches,seizures,adjustment problems with mixed emotions,and organic brain syndrome,as it found that new and material 3 evidence had not been submitted.
The Board determined that the evidence of record did not establish that head injury residuals,a neck disability, a visual disability,or slow speech were incurred in or aggravated by service,and that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his previously denied claims.
Vision Loss The appellant first argues that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision denying entitlement to service connection for vision loss.
He correctly notes that the Board misstated the examiner's opinion,using it as evidence that his vision loss was not related to his in-service accident when,in fact,the examiner stated that it was at least as likely as not that the vision loss was caused by his head injury.
Establishing service connection generally requires medical evidence or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability;(2) 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.
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.
Authorities Cited
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 →