CAVC Case 14-0783: Knee
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2013-11-15 · 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.
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
KneeHearing LossTinnitusArthritis
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 ConnectionKnee ConditionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The examiner's rationale concludes: Thus there is no nexus or medical evidence of chronic left knee pain that was continuous after the veteran left the service.
In the November 2013 decision here on appeal,the Board denied the claim.
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.
sen while he was in service,and the appellant asserts the Board neglected to ensure that VA met its duty to assist by adequately considering his right knee disorder and by failing to obtain medical records.
Second,he states the Board erred by failing to provide [him]with a medical examination for his right knee condition.
Finally,he asserts the Board erred by failing to explain and apply the heightened duty to assist standard in this case, regarding certain VA medical records that the appellant alleges exist but were not found by VA.
Each of these asserted errors arise under the Secretary's duty to assist,which this Court reviews under a clearly erroneous standard of review.
The substantiation or rejection of a service-connection claim is a finding of fact and also reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard of review pursuant to 38 U.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|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 →