CAVC Case 10-0889: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-01-12 · 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
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 Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board noted that the appellant's service treatment records show no signs of a spine injury.
the Board finds the examination[]to be sufficient, and thus that VA had adequately fulfilled its duty to assist.
The Board found that the appellant's assertions regarding continuity of symptoms since service were unpersuasive.
The Board noted that the January 2009 VA examiner found it less likely than not that the appellant's current disabilities are due to his service,and that there is no contrary medical opinion of record.
The Board concluded: Based upon the clinically normal findings on the [appellant's]separation examination,the amount of time between service and the [appellant's]first documented medical complaint,as well as the VA examiner's uncontradicted 3 negative nexus opinion,the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim.
As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim,the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable.
The appellant next contends that the Board member at his November 2009 hearing failed to explain the issue of nexus,failed to inform him that his January 2009 VA medical examination did not support his claim because the examiner did not find a nexus between his current disability and a service-related injury,and failed to suggest that he obtain and submit evidence of a nexus.
Finally,the appellant argues that the Board failed to discuss whether the benefit of the doubt rule should apply.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|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 →