CAVC Case 16-3738: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2016-10-13 · MEREDITH, 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
BackCervicalKneeShoulderAnkleHeadacheArthritis
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 ConditionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
In July 2007, the appellant underwent another VA examination with the same examiner, who diagnosed the appellant with lumbosacral strain with minimal arthritis and reiterated his opinion that this condition was not related to service.
In May 2009, the Board denied the appellant's claim of entitlement to disability compensation for a low back disorder.
In December 2011,the same examiner who provided the May 2006 and July 2007 VA medical opinions,upon review of the claims file,diagnosed the appellant with spinal stenosis and opined that it was less likely than not related to service but natural age progression.
Upon review of the record and interview of the appellant,the examiner diagnosed him with degenerative disk disease (DDD),opining that spinal stenosis and DDD are less likely than not related to an acute back strain that occurred more than 30 years prior to his next back complaint and even further from the time of a diagnosis of spinal stenosis.
The examiner opined: There are no medical records of evidence from 1970-2004 to establish a nexus therefore it would be less likely than not that the [appellant's]spinal stenosis is related to the injury he describes .
On October 13,2016,the Board denied the appellant's claim for disability compensation for a low back disability.
ANALYSIS The appellant argues,essentially,that the Board erred in (1)relying upon medical opinions that are inadequate and failed to substantially comply with the Board's prior remand directives, and (2)failing to provide adequate reasons or bases in support of its finding that lay statements by the appellant and G.
Duty To Assist [O]nce the Secretary undertakes the effort to provide an examination [or opinion] when developing a service-connection claim,.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →