CAVC Case 16-1052: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2016-02-10 · KRAMER
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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackCervicalSleep ApneaRespiratoryGI
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 RatingPTSDSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
4 The Board noted that,at her separation examination,the appellant.
In an August 2013 rating decision, the RO found that no new and material evidence had been submitted and continued the previous denial of the appellant.
The appellant's lumbar spine disorder claim,new and material evidence necessary to reopen the claim had not been received.
Therein she asserted, inter alia,that her VA C P examination for esophageal conditions was inadequate because the examiner failed to consider and opine on the issue of whether her psychotropic medications,including Clonazepam,Sertraline and Trazadone may cause or aggravate Veteran's acid reflux condition.
The appellant argues that the Board erred in its denial of her claim for GERD when it relied upon an inadequate medical record, failed to ensure that VA met its duty to assist,ignored favorable evidence,and provided inadequate reasons and bases for its decision.
The appellant's GERD is secondary to service-connected PTSD because the Board failed to address her argument that her PTSD medications may cause or aggravate her GERD.
The Court agrees that the Board failed to properly address the appellant.
The appellant has not presented any argument as to whether the Board erred in its denial of VA benefits for GERD on a direct basis,dismissal of that issue is appropriate.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →