CAVC Case 12-1043: Knee
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2012-01-09 · MOORMAN, 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 ConnectionKnee Condition
Why It Was Decided This Way
Finally,the Board found that the appellant's bilateral knee and left ankle conditions were not etiologically related to his active duty military service.
2 The Board ultimately denied the appellant's bilateral knee and bilateral ankle service-connection claims,stating that a preponderance of the evidence weighed against them.
ANALYSIS Generally,establishing service connection on a direct basis 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 Board's determination of service connection is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
49,52 (1990)(when applying the clearly erroneous standard,if, after reviewing the record in its entirety,the Court determines that the Board's finding of fact is supported by a plausible basis, 'the [Court] may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact,it would have weighed the evidence differently.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
Here,the Board found that the record does not contain affirmative evidence,for example,treatment records,attributing his knee and ankle disabilities to service.
Board's Discussion of Favorable Evidence The appellant further asserts that the Board failed to consider favorable evidence of record.
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 →