CAVC Case 16-3128: Cervical
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2016-07-11 · MOORMAN
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 ConnectionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant ,appeals through counsel a July 11,2016,decision of the Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)that,among other things,(1) determined that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis and (2) denied entitlement to service connection for sinusitis.
For the following reasons,the Court will affirm the Board's decision as to (1)its determination that the appellant did not submit new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim for service connection for sarcoidosis and (2)its denial of service connection for sinusitis.
Subsequently,the RO requested another medical-nexus opinion to clarify whether the appellant.
In June 2011,a second nexus opinion was prepared pursuant to the RO's request.
The appellant had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for service connection for sarcoidosis.
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.
The Board's determination that the appellant's disability is not related to service is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review 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.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist|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 →