CAVC Case 14-0396: Skin
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2013-12-20 · PIETSCH, 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
Service Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
He contends that the Board erred in finding that he was not entitled to a presumption of service connection under 38 U.
He further contends,with respect to service connection on a direct basis, that VA was required to provide him with a medical nexus opinion regarding whether his cancers are related to in-service radiation exposure and that a VA hearing officer failed to properly advise him that such a nexus opinion from one of his treating doctors would support his claim.
In regard to service connection based on in-service exposure to ionizing radiation,the Board found that the appellant was not exposed to radiation in service and therefore concluded that statutory presumptions of service connection based on radiation exposure were inapplicable.
Following further administrative proceedings,a VA examiner opined in June 2013 that the appellant's bladder and prostate cancers were less likely than not related to his sun exposure in service.
The Board determined that the evidence did not support either presumptive or direct service connection for the appellant's bladder and prostate cancers.
In regard to presumptive service connection based on a theory of exposure to ionizing radiation,the Board found that bladder cancer,but not prostate cancer,is included as one of the diseases specified by statute as eligible for a presumption of service connection.
In regard to direct service connection based on exposure to ionizing radiation, the Board found that the appellant was not exposed to radiation in service.
4 In regard to direct service connection,he contends that the Board erred in finding that VA satisfied its duty to assist.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Duty To Assist
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 →