BVA Case 11-0952: Psychiatric

BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · LOURIE

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
Unknown
Judge
LOURIE
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricBackDiabetesEye

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

per month ·  per year, tax-free

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)
RatingMonthly (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
See your full claim picture — free
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

PsychiatricBackDiabetesEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

In July 1975, Stallworth was sepa- rated from service after an Army medical board found him unfit for further military duty.

The Board found the facts distinguishable from Andino v.

The Board found that the doctors who determined that Stallworth’s 1975 service connection diagnosis was clearly erroneous provided an opinion based on all of the accumu- lated evidence.

Stallworth argued that the examining physicians did not certify that the previous diagnosis was clearly erroneous and that the statements relied upon by the examining physicians did not address all of the accu- mulated evidence.

the light of all accumulated evidence, the diagnosis on which service connection was predicated is clearly erroneous.

Thus, the plain language of the regulation dictates that service connection may be terminated if a medical professional certifies that his or her review of all accumu- lated evidence indicates that the prior diagnosis is clearly erroneous.

105(d) and failed to follow Andino by affirming the Board’s reliance upon a medical opinion that failed to certify that “in light of all accumulated evidence, the diagnosis upon which service connection was predicated is clearly erroneous.

Stallworth essentially argues that Andino obligates the requisite medical au- thority to use magic words such as “clearly erroneous” when providing an opinion pursuant to § 3.

Authorities Cited

Andino v. NicholsonForshey v. PrincipiJohnson v. DerwinskiPrinkey v. ShinsekiSee Stallworth v. Shinseki

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.105(d)38 USC 7292

Denial Type

Unclassified

Find Similar Precedent 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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.