CAVC Case 17-2879: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · · Unknown
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
BackHipSkinGIEyeHypertension
Why It Was Decided This Way
Euzebio “ha[d] not demonstrated prejudicial error in the Board’s decision to decline to obtain a medical nexus opinion” to evaluate whether Mr.
The district court explained that the VA’s “adoption of [a] cause and effect test and failure to give the benefit of the doubt to veterans violated the Dioxin Act,” “sharply tipped the scales against the claims of veter- ans,” and thus, “[g]iven the congressional finding of sub- stantial scientific uncertainty regarding the effects of Agent Orange,” were “not harmless” errors, but likely “ac- count[ed] for the conclusion that the [VA] reached in the Dioxin [R]egulation.
76 (“On a practical basis, for the above reasons, [the VA’s Office of General Counsel’s] [Veterans Court] Litigation Group will not defend service connection for hypertension cases when a VA nexus opin- ion has not been obtained[.
MCDONOUGH 15 to meet even the low burden triggering [the] VA’s duty to assist in providing an examination and medical opinion.
Euzebio argued that “the Board erred in determining that the Secretary’s duty to assist did not require [the] VA to afford him a medical examination,” because “the Board failed to consider and discuss ‘all evidence and material of record and applicable provisions of law and regulation,’ including the [NAS Up- date 2014].
The majority then determined that the Board correctly concluded that the VA had satis- fied its duty to assist under McLendon, see Euzebio, 31 Vet.
Further, “in the case of a finding of material fact adverse to the claimant,” the Veterans Court may “hold unlawful and set aside or reverse such finding if the finding is clearly erroneous.
That constructive possession requires relevance and not a direct relationship makes sense in light of the VA’s “statutory duty to assist veterans in developing the evi- dence necessary to substantiate their claims.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Duty To Assist
Find Similar Precedent 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 →