CAVC Case 10-3047: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-06-25 · 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 examiner concluded that the appellant's knee condition is not related to his service.
The Board found that the appellant was treated in service for low back pain,but determined both that there is no evidence that the appellant suffered from a chronic low back disability in service and that the evidence does not support a relationship between the appellant's in-service back pain and any current back disorder.
In reaching its decision, the Board found that the appellant's lay statements describing a continuity of symptomatology between his service and his more recent diagnoses of back and leg disorders are not credible and that there are no medical opinions of record finding a causal connection between the [appellant's]active service and his current disorders.
The Board found the April 2005 and September 2009 VA examination reports to be highly probative.
The Board acknowledged that the examiner failed to consider the appellant's report that he treated himself for his disorders,but concluded that both opinions are adequate despite this oversight because the appellant's allegations of continuous symptoms and treatment are not found to be credible here.
Finally, the Board found that the Secretary substantially complied with its September 2008 remand.
First,the appellant asserts that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determination that the appellant's lay statements are not credible.
Next,the appellant argues that the Board failed to consider his March 2006 opinion,which he argues is a medical opinion discussing the etiology of his disorders.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →