CAVC Case 17-0995: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2017-02-08 · BARTLEY, 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
PTSDAnxietyPsychiatricSleep ApneaDiabetesEyeRadiculopathy
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 ConnectionEffective DateIncreased RatingPTSDSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
After finding that VA had satisfied its duty to assist by obtaining various post-service medical records and providing adequate examinations relevant to each disability,R.
at 6,the Board denied service connection for sleep apnea,including as secondary to PTSD,R.
The appellant first argues that the Board clearly erred in finding that VA satisfied its duty to assist with respect to his sleep apnea claim because it did not obtain the results of fee-basis sleep studies conducted in December 2008 and January 2009.
In addition,he asserts that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its denial of his sleep apnea claim 2 because,inter alia,it did not adequately address his lay statements regarding in-service onset and his report that a VA doctor linked his sleep apnea to combat and that it failed to address his theory, expressly raised below,that sleep apnea was caused or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus.
The Court has jurisdiction to review whether the Board erred in failing to consider a reasonably raised issue or theory of entitlement.
The Secretary has a duty to assist claimants in developing their claims.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that VA's duty to assist as articulated in 3.
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|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 →