CAVC Case 13-1123: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2012-12-17 · 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
BackCervicalHearing LossShoulderHeadacheSkinArthritis
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 Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
1 The Board decision also found that there was new and material evidence to reopen the appellant's claim for bilateral hearing loss and granted disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss.
In it,the Board found that it had fulfilled its duty to assist and no medical examination was necessary for the appellant's skin condition because there was no competent evidence showing a nexus between any incident of service and the disorder at issue.
The Board denied the appellant's claim for a skin disorder finding the preponderance of the evidence to be against the award of service connection for a skin disability.
Additionally,the Board noted that the appellant did not submit a claim for a skin disorder when he filed a claim for other conditions and that this omission weighed against him having a chronic skin condition.
Further,the appellant argues that the Board failed to explain its decision in not obtaining a VA examination.
The Secretary's duty to assist requires that he provide a VA medical examination to a claimant when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability;(2) evidence establishing that an event, injury,or disease occurred in service or,for certain diseases,manifestation of the disease during an applicable presumptive period; and (3)an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of the disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability;but (4)insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.
3 As an initial matter,when considering whether the Board erred when it found that the appellant was not entitled to a medical examination for his skin condition,the Court notes that the Board applied an incorrect standard in its McLendon analysis.
In determining that a medical examination was not warranted,the Board stated that the record did not reflect competent evidence showing a nexus between any incident of service and the disorder at issue.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →