CAVC Case 11-2349: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2011-06-22 · 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.

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
Outcome
Affirmed / Remanded / Vacated
Decision Date
2011-06-22
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricHearing Loss

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

Service ConnectionReopenHearing LossPTSD

Why It Was Decided This Way

SCHOELEN, Judge :the appellant III ,appeals through counsel a June 22, 2011,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision that (1)determined new and material evidence had not been received to reopen a claim for disability compensation for a major depressive disorder, and (2) denied entitlement to disability compensation for a psychiatric disorder other than a major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),claimed as psychosis with neurosis.

The RO issued a May 12,2010,rating decision,which (1) denied disability compensation for a mental disorder,claimed as psychosis and neurosis,and (2)determined that new and material evidence to reopen a claim for disability compensation for a major depressive disorder had not been received.

The Board determined that (1)the appellant had filed separate claims for a major depressive disorder,psychosis with neurosis,and PTSD,(2)the appellant's request to reopen a claim for PTSD was currently being processed by the RO and,therefore,the Board would not address that matter,and (3)pursuant to Clemons ,the Board would adjudicate the issues on appeal as (a)whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim for disability compensation for a major depressive disorder,and (b)whether the appellant is entitled to disability compensation for a psychiatric disorder other than a major depressive disorder and PTSD,claimed as psychosis with neurosis.

Regarding the first issue,the Board determined that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen a claim for disability compensation for a major depressive disorder had not been received.

The Board noted that a claim for a major depressive disorder was denied in an unappealed January 2008 rating decision because the evidence did not show that the appellant's condition was related to service,and found that the evidence received subsequent to that denial,although new,was not material because it failed to show that the appellant's major depressive disorder was incurred in service or that it was related to service.

With regard to whether the record demonstrated entitlement to disability compensation for a psychiatric disorder,other than a major depressive disorder and PTSD,claimed as psychosis with neurosis,the Board found that there was no indication that any psychiatric disorder diagnosed post[]service either had its onset in service or is related to any event,injury,or disease incurred in service.

ANALYSIS The appellant raises three assertions of error on appeal:(1)The Board erred when it determined that he had filed separate claims for different psychiatric diagnoses;(2)the Board erred when it determined that he failed to submit new and material evidence to reopen a claim for disability compensation for a major depressive disorder;and (3)the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for determining that VA's duty to assist did not require the Secretary to provide him a VA medical examination regarding his claim for disability compensation for a psychiatric disorder,other than a major depressive disorder and PTSD.

In response,the Secretary concedes that the appellant's claim for disability compensation for a psychiatric condition other than a major depressive disorder and PTSD should be remanded because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases addressing the appellant's lay evidence and whether it established that there was an event,injury,or disease in service,which may be associated with the appellant's current disability.

Authorities Cited

Anglin v. WestBarr v. NicholsonBoggs v. PeakeClemons v. ShinsekiElkins v. WestEphraim v. BrownEvans v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiFortuck v. PrincipiGonzales v. WestHaas v. ShinsekiHodge v. WestJarrell v. NicholsonKutscherousky v. WestLayno v. BrownLendon v. NicholsonNewhouse v. NicholsonSee Duenas v. PrincipiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Kent v. NicholsonShade v. ShinsekiVelez v. Shinseki

Denial Type

No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist

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 →
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.

VetAid is a free veterans claims tool, not a VA-accredited representative — it does not file anything with VA for you, and it works alongside your accredited VSO, claims agent or attorney. About VetAid