CAVC Case 17-0442: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2017-02-08 · 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
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 ConnectionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
In February 2012,the RO did not reopen the appellant's claims because the evidence was not new and material.
]Therefore,it is a[t]least as likely as not that the etiology and nature of the talonavicular joint degenerative joint disease related to a pre[]existing condition because of the credibility of the lay statements that accounted for right foot trauma and the observation of marked,post-traumatic degenerative changes in the right talonavicular joint.
5 On February 8,2017,the Board denied the appellant's disability compensation claim for a right ankle disorder.
ANALYSIS Generally,the appellant argues for reversal because the Board failed to apply the presumption of soundness under 38 U.
First,the appellant asserts that the Board erred in finding clear and unmistakable evidence of a preexisting injury without an explanation;applied the incorrect standard; relied on medical reports that were not based on any contemporaneous evidence of a preservice injury;and failed to consider positive lay evidence.
On the other hand,remand is the appropriate remedy where the Board failed to ensure proper development of the claim or the record is inadequate for adjudication purposes.
Establishing that a disability is service connected for purposes of entitlement to VA disability compensation generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability,(2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service,and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.
Whether the record establishes entitlement to service connection is a finding of fact,which the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against
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 →