CAVC Case 12-0393: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2011-10-14 · PIETSCH, 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
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 ConditionTDIUIncreased Rating
Why It Was Decided This Way
In December 1981,the Board denied the appellant entitlement to disability benefits for a left knee disability.
In its decision here on appeal,the Board determined,and the appellant does not dispute,that this decision is final.
In June 1998,the Board denied the appellant's request to reopen a claim for entitlement to disability benefits for a lumbar and dorsal spine disorder and denied the appellant's claim for entitlement to disability benefits for benign prostatic hypertrophy with a transurethral resection of the prostate and adenocarcinoma.
In September 2004,the Board denied the appellant entitlement to disability benefits for benign prostatic hypertrophy,status post transurethral resection with adenocarcinoma, a disorder it now termed prostate cancer.
In its decision here on appeal,the Board found,and the appellant does not dispute,that the appellant did not appeal the Board's decision and it therefore became final.
1 In its February 2009 decision,the RO decided the appellant's prostate cancer claim on the merits,and thus it apparently found that the appellant had submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim.
1996)( [T]he Board does not have jurisdiction to consider a claim which it previously adjudicated unless new and material evidence is presented,and before the Board may reopen such a claim,it must so find.
4 In its October 14,2011,decision here on appeal,the Board determined that the record does not contain new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the appellant's claims for entitlement to disability benefits for prostate cancer and for a left knee disability.
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 →