CAVC Case 10-2739: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-04-20 · 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
BackKneeArthritisRadiculopathy
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 concluded that the preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant's claim.
The Board considered the benefit of the doubt rule,but found that because the preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant's claim, the doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal.
Finally,the appellant argues that the Board failed to adequately apply the benefit of the doubt rule.
Appellant's Lay Statements The Board concluded that the appellant's recollections as to the events in service are unreliable.
It is the Board's responsibility,as factfinder,to determine the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence.
The determination of the credibility of lay evidence is a factual question reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
A finding of material fact is 4 clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →