CAVC Case 10-0397: Skin
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2009-12-15 · 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.
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
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 Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
This evaluation did not provide a medical opinion regarding a nexus between the appellant.
The Board found that there was medical evidence of record that the appellant.
However,the Board found that a lack of in-service complaint of or treatment for hernia outweighs his lay statements that he began experiencing symptoms while in service.
Finally,the Board found that no post-service medical evidence of record supported a nexus between the appellant.
Thus, the Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim.
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.
]2006)(finding that the Board may weigh the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence against the lay evidence in determining credibility,but the Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence).
In Buchanan ,the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) explained that the Board may weigh the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence against the lay evidence of record but that it may not determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|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 →