CAVC Case 09-4612: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2009-09-03 · SCHOELEN, 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
PsychiatricBackCervicalHeadacheSkinTDIUEyeRadiculopathy
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 ConditionEffective DateTDIUIncreased Rating
Why It Was Decided This Way
On May 23,1989,the Board denied a disability rating for headaches in excess of 10%.
The Board found that although the appellant experienced recurrent headaches,for which he takes several medications,he obtained partial improvement through the use of Inderal and 2 [c]haracteristic prostrating attacks occurring on an average of one per month over several months ha[d]not been clinically documented.
The Board found that the recent medical evidence of record showed a diagnosis of chronic vascular-type headaches,which 3 the appellant consistently described .
The Board concluded that a 30%disability rating was warranted because the evidence was consistent with 'characteristic prostrating attacks,'averaging one per month over the last several months,as contemplated under [38 C.
Finally,the Board found that extraschedular consideration pursuant to 38 C.
The Court found that the the same [wa]s true for the appellant's second argument,that the Board erred in its March 1994 decision by declining to award an extraschedular rating for his service-connected headaches under 38 C.
5 With regard to the appellant's first and second allegations of CUE,the Board concluded that the appellant's arguments amounted to a disagreement with the weighing of the evidence,which cannot constitute CUE.
With regard to the appellant's third allegation,the Board found that the issue of entitlement to a TDIU rating was not raised by the appellant's December 1987 statement or the record in 1994.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Duty To Assist|Cue
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 →