CAVC Case 12-3354: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2012-09-25 · 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
PTSDPsychiatricBackHearing LossShoulderSkinRespiratoryArthritis
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 ConnectionReopenHearing LossPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the September 2012 decision on appeal�discussed in greater detail below�the Board denied (1)a request to reopen a claim for compensation under 38 U.
The appellant first argues that the Board failed to explain why,in light of Shade v.
Next,he asserts that the April 2010 VA spine examination is inadequate for evaluation purposes and that the Board failed to offer adequate reasons or bases for not remanding the matter for an adequate examination.
Last,the veteran argues that the Board failed to adequately explain why he was not entitled to an increased evaluation for right wrist fracture residuals based on Deluca v.
2 Although the RO reopened claims for section 1151 compensation and service connection for a low back disorder,the Board has an independent obligation to determine on de novo review whether,since the prior final decision, new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim.
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.
Although noting that February 2002 VA treatment records submitted during the course of his attempt to reopen contained complaints of diminished smell and nasal congestion,as well as a rhinitis diagnosis,the Board determined that the appellant.
And because the claims had not been reopened,the Board concluded that the duty to assist did not apply,such that VA was not required to provide a VA examination.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|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 →