CAVC Case 11-0200: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-10-07 · 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
PsychiatricBackSleep ApneaAnkleSkinHeartRespiratoryGITDIUEye
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 ConnectionEffective DateReopenTDIUIncreased RatingSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
First,she asserts that the Board erred in failing to award her a disability rating in excess of 10%for her hemorrhoid and lumbar spine claims.
Second,the appellant asserts that the Board erred in denying her a compensable disability rating for her allergy,seborrheic dermatitis,status-post fracture of the left fifth proximal phalanx,and right hand laceration claims, and a 10%disability rating after August 2007 for her left proximal phalanx disorder.
In support of these argument,the appellant contends that the Board failed to consider both secondary conditions aggravated by her service-connected disorders and functional limitations caused by her service-connected disorders.
Third,the appellant asserts that the Board erred in not granting her entitlement to service connection for a head injury, irritable bowel syndrome,gastritis,otitis externa,irregular heartbeat,low blood pressure,myopia, a foot injury,a gynecological disorder claimed as female cramps,persistent yeast infection, vaginosis,and menstrual disorder,arthritis,dysuria,sleep apnea/insomnia, asthma,sinusitis,residuals of a skin injury,and a right leg/ankle disorder.
Fourth,the appellant argues that the Board erred in assigning August 6,2003,as the effective date for disability benefits arising from her service-connected disorders.
Finally,she argues that the Board erred in denying her entitlement to an extraschedular disability rating.
The appellant asserts that the Board failed to analyze the credibility and probative value of evidence she submitted,failed to address all of her in-service medical evidence,did not support its findings with an adequate statement of reasons or bases,and did not appropriately apply the benefit of the doubt doctrine.
The appellant next asserts that the Board failed to consider evidence such as painful motion,itching,eye 2 pain,foot and leg pain,[and]irritable bowel syndrome.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility
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 →