CAVC Case 17-1531: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2017-03-28 · 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
PTSDPsychiatricCervicalSleep ApneaHipSkinHeartDiabetesEyeRadiculopathy
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 ConnectionPTSDSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
In addition, the Board denied entitlement to higher evaluations for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy as well as entitlement to earlier effective dates for the awards of service connection for the neuropathy disabilities.
The appellant filed the claim for service connection for OSA,he was not service connected for PTSD.
The appellant and the Secretary agreed to a joint motion for partial remand,inter alia,as to the denial of service connection for erectile dysfunction, noting that the Board erred in not adequately addressing conflicting medical opinions regarding the etiology of erectile dysfunction.
In the March 2017 decision on appeal,the Board denied service connection for bilateral lower extremity swelling as secondary to diabetes,erectile dysfunction as secondary to diabetes, squamous cell carcinoma,stasis dermatitis,and OSA.
Finally,the Board denied entitlement to an evaluation for diabetes in excess of 20%.
The appellant argues that the Board erred by relying on the June 2014 medical opinion to deny a higher evaluation because the opinion containing conflicting opinions regarding whether his diabetes requires regulation of activities.
5 The Board's determinations of the appropriate degree of disability and adequacy of a medical examination are findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.
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|Not Service Connected|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 →