CAVC Case 12-0603: Hip
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2012-01-09 · 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
Service Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board noted that VA had not provided the appellant with a medical examination and opinion regarding whether his hip disorder is related to service (nexus opinion)to assist in evaluating the claim,but found that VA was not legally required to do so because the evidence did not meet the low threshold of indicating that the appellant's hip condition may be related to service.
The Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence was against a finding of service connection for the appellant's hip disorder.
The appellant argues before the Court that the Board erred in (1)determining that a VA medical examination was not required,(2)determining that his lay assertions lacked credibility;(3) relying on its own unsubstantiated medical opinion;and (4)failing to discuss whether he was entitled to the special evidentiary rules for combat veterans contained in 38 U.
The appellant therefore asks the Court to vacate the Board's decision and remand the matter for VA to provide a medical nexus examination and readjudicate the claim.
ANALYSIS Establishing service connection generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of:(1)a current disability;(2)an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury;and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.
The appellant first argues that the Board erred in determining that VA was not obligated to provide him with a VA medical examination.
The Secretary has a duty to assist claimants in developing and obtaining relevant evidence needed to substantiate their claims.
For disability compensation claims,the Secretary's duty to assist includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on the claim.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|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 →