Fed. Cir. Case 14-2811: PTSD

Fed. Cir.U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion · 2020-08-12 · REYNA

Outcome

See opinion

Decision Date

2020-08-12

Judge

REYNA

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSD Depression Psychiatric TDIU Prostate

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

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

Rating Married Children

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)

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

See your full claim picture — free

Why It Was Decided This Way

The appellant’s case, the Board concluded that two ser- vice department records, which were received in 2006 and 2007, were not “relevant” under the regulation because they did not pertain to the basis of the 1983 denial of the appellant.

As the Board determined, and as we explain, under the regulation, in order to be “relevant,” a record must speak to a matter in issue, in other words, a matter in dispute.

The RO also located an additional record it did not consider in 1983: a daily log from the appellant.

The Board found that the VA did receive service department records documenting the appellant.

Finally, the Board concluded with the observation that the records at issue were not ‘‘outcome determinative’’ and ‘‘not relevant to the decision in May 1983 because the basis of the denial was that a diagnosis of PTSD was not warranted, not a dispute as to whether or not the Veteran engaged in combat with the enemy during service.

Second, before amendments promulgated in 2019, a claimant could reopen a claim by submitting “new and material evidence” under former 38 U.

1 For claims based upon “new and material evidence” filed before 2019, such as the appellant.

The comments accompanying the final rule explain that the “new and rel- evant” standard for supplemental claims is “a lesser stand- ard and reduces the claimant’s burden” as compared to the prior “new and material” standard.

Authorities Cited

Auer v. RobbinsBank v. GermainBeley v. NaphtalyBlubaugh v. McBrammer v. DerwinskiBrown v. GardnerCohen v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCook v. PrincipiCounts v. BrownDecosta v. United StatesDonnell v. ShinsekiEpps v. GoberForshey v. PrincipiGee v. PeakeGolz v. ShinsekiHodge v. WestHudgens v. McIn [Appellant] v. ShulkinJones v. WilkieKing v. St[Appellant] v. Mc[Appellant] v. Shulkin[Appellant] v. WilkieSears v. PrincipiSee Boone v. LightSee Garcia v. WilkieSee [Appellant] v. WilkieStern v. MarSursely v. Peake

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 20.1400.38 CFR 3.15638 CFR 3.156(a)38 CFR 3.156(c)38 CFR 3.156.38 CFR 3.159(d)38 CFR 3.250138 CFR 3.2501.38 CFR 3.304(f)38 CFR 3.400(q)38 CFR 4.127.38 USC 10138 USC 501.38 USC 510338 USC 510838 USC 511038 USC 5110(a)

Denial Type

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 →