CAVC Case 13-2827: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2013-09-09 · 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
PTSDDepressionKneeHipSkinTDIUArthritis
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
Service ConnectionReopenKnee ConditionPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant does not present any argument concerning the Board's denial of an evaluation in excess of 10%for residuals of a right inguinal hernia or the finding that he had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen a claim for service connection for a right hip disorder.
In the second decision,the Board found service connection precluded under 38 C.
The Board found the veteran's reports of blood exposure not credible and without probative value on the basis that (1)his statements about blood transfusions and blood exposure were inconsistent,(2)he did not have a medical-related MOS, and (3)he denied illegal drug use to health care professionals.
The Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of evidence,account for the persuasiveness of 5 evidence,and provide reasons for rejecting material evidence favorable to the claimant.
The appellant argues that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for denying referral for extraschedular consideration for the left knee condition because it did not discuss his use of a cane,which is not contemplated in any of the diagnostic codes it considered.
Brown ,the Court rejected a similarly bare statement of reasons or bases when the Board failed to address the effect of a veteran's use of a wheelchair on his service-connected conditions.
The appellant argues that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for relying on a September 2007 VA medical opinion,which led the Board to find that his hepatitis C was caused by willful misconduct and to deny service connection.
However,the Board concluded that service connection for hepatitis C must be denied as the preponderance of the competent evidence of record demonstrates that the [v]eteran's hepatitis C was the result of his use of illegal drugs.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →