CAVC Case 13-1865: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2013-05-22 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

per month ·  per year, tax-free

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)
RatingMonthly (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
See your full claim picture — free
Outcome
Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
2013-05-22
Judge
MOORMAN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSDBackKneeHearing LossTinnitusHipAnkleHeartRespiratoryArthritis

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

SMCBack ConditionService ConnectionIncreased RatingHearing LossPTSD

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the second decision on appeal (Decision 2),the Board denied the appellant.

Service-Connection Claims Establishing service connection generally 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.

A finding of service connection,or no service connection,is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard in 38 U.

A factual finding 'is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

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.

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.

This determination is reviewed by the Court under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

This is a classic factual assessment, involving the weighing of facts, and the Board's findings are subject to the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiHeuer v. BrownHickson v. WestLendon v. NicholsonLoving v. NicholsonRodriguez v. PeakeSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Ford v. GoberSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hampton v. GoberSee Robinson v. ShinsekiSee Smallwood v. BrownSee Swann v. BrownSee Tyrues v. ShinsekiStefl v. NicholsonWaters v. ShinsekiWeaver v. PrincipiWells v. Principi

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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.

VetAid is a free veterans claims tool, not a VA-accredited representative — it does not file anything with VA for you, and it works alongside your accredited VSO, claims agent or attorney. About VetAid