CAVC Case 16-2957: Knee
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2016-04-28 · 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
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 ConnectionIncreased Rating
Why It Was Decided This Way
In a December 2006 decision,the Board denied the appellant's increased rating claim.
In a May 2015 joint motion for partial remand (JMPR), the parties agreed that another remand was warranted because the Board failed to address relevant evidence as to whether he was entitled to increased ratings during the appeal period.
In an April 2016 decision,the Board denied a disability rating in excess of 10%prior to January 10,2007,and awarded a 50% 2 rating,but no higher,for the period beginning on January 10,2007.
Period Prior to January 10,2007 The appellant argues that,for the period prior to January 10,2007,the Board failed to adequately explain why it assigned greater probative value to objective evidence demonstrating a lack of foot swelling than to his lay statements describing foot swelling.
He also asserts that the Board failed to address his diagnosis of plantar fasciitis and rate the condition separately under DC 5284 ( Foot injuries,other ).
In the decision on appeal,the Board determined that a disability rating in excess of 10% was not warranted for bilateral pes planus for the period prior to January 10,2007.
In describing the appellant's disability picture,the Board noted the appellant's complaints of,among other things, pain on use of feet and symptoms improved by orthopedic inserts, citing several VA examination reports and lay statements.
The Board found that the appellant's disability picture most nearly approximated a 10%rating under DC 5276.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not Service Connected|Rating Criteria
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 →