CAVC Case 12-3649: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2011-06-09 · 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
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 ConnectionEffective DateReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
As an initial matter,the Board found that VA had satisfied its duty to assist because (1)VA had obtained the veteran's SMRs and there was no indication in the record that additional evidence relevant to the issues decided .
Next,the Board reviewed the 4 evidence she submitted since the RO's March 1994 final denial of her claim for a bladder disorder to determine if it constituted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen that claim.
The Board concluded that it did not,finding that it was cumulative of evidence of urinary complaints previously considered by the RO and that it did not relate to the unestablished fact necessary to substantiate her claim�i.
Finally,the Board denied a disability evaluation in excess of 10%for residuals of a service-connected right foot injury because the evidence of record, particularly the August 2006 VA examination,showed that her foot disorder caused moderate,not moderately severe or severe,impairment.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
The appellant argues,inter alia,that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for finding that VA had satisfied its duty to assist her in developing her claims for service connection because the Board (1)did not discuss whether she was entitled to a VA medical examination to determine whether she currently has any of the disabilities for which she is seeking service connection,and (2)did not explain why it had not made any further efforts to attempt to obtain the outstanding SMRs that she identified at the January 2009 Board hearing.
Entitlement to VA Medical Examinations VA has a duty to assist claimants in developing their claims.
In the instant case,the Board found that VA had satisfied its duty to assist because,inter alia, it had provided the appellant.
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 →