CAVC Case 10-1922: Anxiety
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-05-26 · HAGEL, 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
AnxietyPsychiatricBackHearing LossTinnitusHeartRespiratoryTDIUHypertension
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
SMCBack ConditionService ConnectionEffective DateReopenHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
Because the Secretary concedes,and the Court agrees, that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its determination that new and material evidence had not been received,the Court will 1 The Board also remanded claims for entitlement to (1)an increased disability rating for bilateral hearing loss, currently rated 80%disabling;(2)special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance or at the housebound rate;and (3)automobile and adaptive equipment or adaptive equipment only.
Additionally,the Board remanded the questions of (1)entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability,and (2) whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a previously denied claim for benefits for a chronic bilateral leg disorder.
Because, however,the Board's determination that VA satisfied its duty to assist is not clearly erroneous, the Court will affirm those portions of the May 2010 Board decision that denied entitlement to benefits for a chronic low back disability,an initial disability rating in excess of 10% for bilateral hearing loss,and an initial disability rating in excess of 10%for tinnitus.
Nevertheless, VA advised him that new and material evidence was necessary to reopen his claim and that the July 1991 VA hospital report was not material to his claim because the cardiac history [he provided]was not supported by medical evidence.
The appellant entitlement to service connection for a complex partial seizure disorder, finding that new and material evidence had not been associated with his claim.
Specifically,the regional office found that evidence from the Michigan Army National Guard and hospital records from the Milwaukee , Wisconsin ,VA medical center did not constitute new and material evidence because,although new,they did not bear directly and substantially upon the issue of a confirmed diagnosis of seizure disorder incurred in or aggravated during military service.
The Board noted the evidence of record at the time of the prior final decisions relating to the appellant.
The appellant's claims for benefits for chest pain and a seizure disorder,reviewed the evidence submitted since those prior final denials, and determined that none of the evidence was both new and material.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →