CAVC Case 11-0493: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-12-01 · 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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackTinnitusHeadacheTDIUEye
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
Effective DateTDIUHearing LossPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant has not established that the Board committed prejudicial error in (1) applying the rating schedule for mental disorders and assigning disability ratings for his adjustment disorder,(2) concluding that VA satisfied its duty to assist him,and (3)declining to refer his claim for extraschedular consideration, the Court will affirm the remainder of the December 2010 Board decision.
First,he contends that,in establishing staged disability ratings,the Board failed to consider favorable evidence that may have supported higher disability ratings and applied the relevant rating criteria in a manner inconsistent with this Court's holding in Mauerhan v.
Second,he contends that the Board failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist him because he was not afforded an adequate VA medical examination and VA failed to attempt to obtain records pertaining to his terminations from various jobs.
Third,he argues that the Board erred by referring,rather than adjudicating,the reasonably raised issue of his entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability.
Finally,he asserts that the Board erred by determining that he was not entitled to referral for extraschedular consideration, given that the Board referred the issue of his entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability to the regional office.
As noted above,the Board concluded that,prior to November 27, 2007, the appellant.
The appellant contends the Board failed to consider pertains to the type of symptoms expressly set forth in the rating criteria for 30%and 50% disability ratings.
Therefore,even if the Court were to assume that the Board misinterpreted the general rating formula as establishing a list of specific symptoms required for a particular rating, absent some showing that the Board failed to consider symptoms not expressly contemplated by the rating schedule,such error would necessarily be nonprejudicial.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam|Rating Criteria
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 →