CAVC Case 10-1267: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-04-05 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

per month ·  per year, tax-free

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)
RatingMonthly (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
See your full claim picture — free
Outcome
Remanded / Affirmed / Reversed / Vacated
Decision Date
2010-04-05
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSDAnxietyPsychiatricBackCervicalHearing LossSleep ApneaSkinRespiratoryGI

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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 ConnectionReopenIncreased RatingHearing LossPTSDSleep Apnea

Why It Was Decided This Way

, through counsel,appeals an April 5, 2010,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied the appellant's claims to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder,low back disorder,pseudofolliculitis barbae, 1 plantar fasciitis, 2 obstructive sleep apnea,hearing loss,and lead and mercury contamination from dental filings.

Additionally,the RO found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to warrant reopening the appellant's claims for low back pain, a mental disorder to include bipolar disorder,pseudofolliculitis barbae,plantar fasciitis,and improper dental treatment to include lead and mercury contamination.

A November 2006 Statement of the Case (SOC)and December 2006 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC)continued to find that new and material evidence had not been submitted to warrant reopening of the appellant's claims and continued to deny service connection for PTSD,ED,hemorrhoids,tinea pedis,allergic rhinitis,xerosis,and GERD.

January and February 2008 SSOCs continued the determination that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the appellant's claims for low back pain, a mental disorder to include bipolar disorder,pseudofolliculitis barbae,plantar fasciitis,and improper dental care to include lead and mercury contamination.

A February 2009 SSOC continued the determination that new and material evidence had not been submitted to warrant reopening the appellant's claims for service connection,and continued denial of service connection for the October 2005 claims.

The RO explained that new evidence had been received for both claims,but that the evidence was not material because it is not related to the issue of service connection.

In June 2009,the RO issued an SOC that continued to deny reopening the appellant's claims for service connection for hearing loss and sleep apnea because he had not submitted new and material evidence.

In the April 2010 Board decision here on appeal,the Board denied entitlement to service connection for ED,hemorrhoids, tinea pedis,allergic rhinitis, xerosis,GERD,and acquired psychiatric disorder because the conditions were not shown during service or for many years thereafter,and there is no competent medical evidence linking the disorder to service.

Authorities Cited

Anglin v. WestCaluza v. BrownCoker v. PeakeElkins v. WestEvans v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiFortuck v. PrincipiGilbert v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiHickson v. WestHilkert v. WestHodge v. WestIn Shade v. ShinsekiJandreau v. NicholsonKent v. NicholsonKutscherousky v. WestLay Statements In Buchanan v. NicholsonLendon v. NicholsonLocklear v. NicholsonMoray v. BrownRose v. WestSee Best v. PrincipiSee Chotta v. PeakeSee Coker v. NicholsonSee Davidson v. ShinksekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Waters v. ShinsekiShade v. Shinseki

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.

VetAid is a free veterans claims tool, not a VA-accredited representative — it does not file anything with VA for you, and it works alongside your accredited VSO, claims agent or attorney. About VetAid