CAVC Case 10-0497: Cervical
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-01-22 · 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 ConnectionEffective DateReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
,appeals through counsel a January 22,2010,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision that determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted sufficient to reopen the appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability.
The appellant had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for right shoulder injury.
The appellant notification that the appeal period for his February 2005 claim had not expired and that he must submit new and material evidence for the RO to reconsider his claim.
The appellant ,the RO determined that the evidence submitted was not new and material and continued its denial of the appellant.
The Board concluded,in pertinent part,that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen the appellant.
Whether the August 2005 Document Constitutes an NOD The appellant first argues that the Board erred when it determined that the January 2005 rating decision was final because,he argues,his representative's August 2005 letter should have been construed as a Notice of Disagreement (NOD)and not as a request to reopen his claim.
Furthermore,the Board 3 explained that the RO sent the appellant a letter on August 31,2005,notifying him that the appeal period for the January 2005 decision had not expired but the Board noted that nothing in the claim file following the issuance of that letter indicates a disagreement with that rating decision.
5108 (stating that [i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed,the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|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 →