CAVC Case 11-2889: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2011-08-05 · BARTLEY, 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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeShoulderHipHeadacheSkin
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 ConnectionReopenKnee ConditionPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
Specifically,the Board denied (1)the PTSD claim because there was no evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD (R.
at 331-32);(2)the skin rash claim because the veteran's rash was associated with a known diagnosis,acneform type dermatitis, which was not related to service (R.
In July 2004, the RO issued a decision declining to reopen his claims for disabilities manifested by a skin rash and joint pain because he had not submitted new and material evidence.
In January 2009,the Board remanded his claims to provide him notice of the basis for his prior final denials,the definition of new and material evidence,and the type of evidence that would suffice to reopen each claim in accordance with Kent v.
The appellant's requests to reopen,the Board found that VA had satisfied its duty to assist because the service medical records (SMRs),private and VA medical records, and VA examination reports had been associated with the claims file and the veteran did not identify any further evidence that he believed was outstanding.
The Board found that the evidence the veteran submitted since that time,although new,was not material because it did not show or suggest that he 4 Some of the veteran's testimony about his skin rashes was either unintelligible or unusable,as indicated by the hearing transcriber.
The Board found that,although [the ]additional records,testimony and statements received since May 2000 are new evidence only to the extent that they were not previously of record and were not considered by the Board in May 2000, they were not material because they do not address the unestablished facts necessary to substantiate the Veteran's claims.
Specifically,the Board determined that none of that evidence related [ the appellant.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|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 →