CAVC Case 12-1295: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2012-02-07 · 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.
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 Condition
Why It Was Decided This Way
The examiner diagnosed DJD of the lumbar spine,but stated that he was unable to resolve the issue of nexus without resort to speculation.
In a December 2008 decision,the Board denied disability compensation benefits for DJD of the lumbar spine.
The parties agreed that the Board failed to adequately explain the bases for its conclusions that (1)there was no suggestion that the private chiropractor reviewed records dated prior to 2007,and (2) the October 2006 VA opinion was negative evidence against the claim, in light of the examiner's statement that he could not resolve the issue without resort to mere speculation.
In rendering its decision,the Board found that the duty to assist had been satisfied,noting that the appellant had not identified and the record otherwise did not indicate,any additional existing evidence necessary for a fair adjudication of the claim.
With regard to the conflicting medical evidence,the Board found the private chiropractor's opinion not probative because he did not have access to the claims file and failed to provide a rationale for his opinion.
Instead,the Board placed significant probative value on the June 2010 VA negative nexus opinion, noting that the examiner had reviewed the claims file, conducted a physical examination,and supported his opinion with adequate rationale.
Additionally,the Board found the October 2006 VA opinion persuasive because the examiner provided a rationale for why he could not give an opinion without resort to speculation.
Based upon its assessment of the credibility and probative weight of the evidence,the Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence was against the claim.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →