CAVC Case 16-3963: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2016-09-30 · SCHOELEN, 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
Back ConditionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
SCHOELEN, Judge :the appellantthrough counsel,appeals a September 30,2016 Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied a disability compensation claim for a lumbar spine disability 1 .
In the September 30,2016,decision here on appeal,the Board found that the Secretary had satisfied his duty to assist the appellant by securing all available service treatment records and post service medical records.
The Board noted the Secretary's attempts to retrieve medical 3 records from the VAMC and found that any other attempts to assist the appellant with obtaining additional evidence would be futile,so the duty to assist was satisfied.
The Board found that the July 2015 VA medical opinion is entitled to great probative weight, as it was provided after examination of the appellant and review of the claims file, it addressed the appellant's assertion as to the etiology of the disability and his lay testimony regarding continuing pain,and provided a detailed rationale for its conclusion.
Based on the evidence presented,the Board denied the appellant's claim.
Once the Secretary undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim,even if not statutorily obligated to do so,he must provide an adequate one.
Whether a medical opinion is adequate is a finding of fact,which this Court reviews under the 'clearly erroneous'standard.
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Duty To Assist
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 →