CAVC Case 14-3690: Depression

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2014-07-16 · SCHOELEN, 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
2014-07-16
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

DepressionPsychiatricBackCervicalKneeHearing LossTinnitusSleep ApneaHipHeadache

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

Back ConditionService ConnectionKnee ConditionHearing LossSleep Apnea

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Board found the February 2009 examination inadequate because the examiner failed to provide an opinion regarding whether the appellant's bilateral leg and neck conditions were aggravated by his service-connected conditions.

The Board also found that the examination regarding 3 sleep apnea did not address pertinent evidence that contradicted the examiner's findings.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for disability compensation for (1)a bilateral knee disorder,to include as secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine disability or any other service-connected disability;(2)a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine disability or any other service-connected disability;(3)sleep apnea, to include as secondary to his service-connected major depressive disorder;(4)headaches,to include as secondary to a service-connected disability;(5)a bilateral hand disorder,to include as secondary to a service-connected disability;and (6)a sleep disorder,to include as secondary to a service-connected disability.

ANALYSIS 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 5 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.

The Secretary's duty to assist includes, in appropriate cases, providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on the claim.

Although VA need not provide a medical examination in all cases, once the Secretary undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim,he must provide an adequate one.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiAllday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonBerger v. BrownBrammer v. DerwinskiCaluza v. BrownCoker v. PeakeComer v. PeakeGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHarris v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiHickson v. WestHilkert v. WestRoberson v. PrincipiRobinson v. PeakeRobinson v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeSee Coker v. NicholsonSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hampton v. GoberSee Monzingo v. ShinsekiSee Rizzo v. ShinsekiSee Robinson v. ShinsekiSee Swann v. BrownStefl v. NicholsonSzemraj v. Principi

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam|No Current Disability

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