CAVC Case 17-0731: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2017-02-06 · 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
BackKneeShoulderHipTDIURadiculopathy
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 ConnectionTDIUIncreased Rating
Why It Was Decided This Way
The examiner also concluded that the appellant's urinary frequency is not related to her back disability.
ANALYSIS The appellant argues that the Board erred when it (1) denied a disability rating in excess of 20%under DC 5237 prior to March 30,2010,and after January 24,2016,a disability rating in excess of 20%under DC 8520,and a disability rating under a separate neurologic DC;(2)found that entitlement to TDIU was not reasonably raised by the record;and (3)found incomplete VA examinations nonprejudicial.
Disability Ratings The Board's determination of the proper disability rating is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
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.
As with any material issue of fact or law,the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision, as well as to facilitate review in this Court.
The Board determined that the appellant had reported flareups during the middle period of this appeal, as shown by the following evidence: The March 2010 VA examination,which reflected additional limitation of motion during flare[]ups [that]was significantly less than that required for a rating in excess [of]or [for]20[%] ;the appellant's August 2011 hearing testimony, which demonstrated that her disability had increased .
Ultimately,the Board concluded that an increased rating of 40% was warranted but only from March 30,2010,to January 24,2016: While the extent of the limitation during flare[]ups is not well documented,the Board must decide this appeal on the basis of the available evidence.
The Board determined that,prior to the January 2016 VA examination, the evidence showed only abnormal findings .
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility
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 →