CAVC Case 10-2421: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-06-15 · 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
PTSDHearing LossTinnitusSleep Apnea
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 ConnectionReopenHearing LossPTSDSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant had not submitted new and material evidence with regard to his claim for benefits for tinnitus and therefore declining to reopen that claim.
In conducting a de novo review, the Board determined that the April 2008 VA audiology examiner's diagnosis of tinnitus constituted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the appellant.
However,in assessing this claim on the merits, the Board concluded that entitlement to benefits for tinnitus was not warranted.
In this regard, the Board noted that there was no indication in the appellant.
Finally,the Board found that the only medical nexus opinion of record was that offered by the VA audiologist following the April 2008 examination and that this opinion,which the Board found to be of significant probative value, was unfavorable.
Based on all of this evidence,the Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence weigh[ed]against [ the appellant.
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.
First,he contends that the Board failed to explain why it was treating his tinnitus claim different than the other claims that were adjudicated in the same Board decision,including his reopened claim for hearing loss and his claim for sleep apnea (both of which were remanded),as 4 well as his claim for post-traumatic stress disorder that,on appeal,involved only the establishment of an appropriate initial disability rating.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →