CAVC Case 15-2247: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2015-05-14 · 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
BackKneeHearing LossShoulderHipAnkleTDIUArthritisRadiculopathyHypertension
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 ConnectionReopenIncreased RatingHearing LossHip Condition
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant ,appeals through counsel a May 14, 2015,decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)that,among other things, denied service connection for a back disability after finding that new and material evidence existed to reopen the claim; denied a compensable rating for hallux valgus with bunion and degenerative changes of the right foot;and denied disability ratings greater than 10%for each of the following:limitation of supination of the left elbow,limitation of extension of the left elbow,limitation of flexion due to degenerative joint disease (DJD)of the right hip, limitation of rotation due to DJD of the right hip, DJD of the left hip.
The Board also remanded the matters of service connection for ulcers,right hand nerve damage,non-union of the left big toe, and bilateral hammer toes and the question whether there exists new and material evidence sufficient to reopen claims for bilateral ankle disabilities.
He also asserts that the Board failed to adequately address whether flare-ups reduce his range of motion.
The Secretary's duty to assist includes,in appropriate cases,the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination.
Whether a medical opinion is adequate is a finding of fact,which this Court reviews under the 'clearly erroneous'standard.
A factual finding 4 '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.
As always,the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination,adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision as well as to facilitate review in this Court.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →