CAVC Case 18-0901: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2017-11-15 · 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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricSleep ApneaHeartDiabetesRespiratoryRadiculopathyHypertension
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 ConnectionReopenDicPTSDSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the November 2017 decision on appeal, the Board denied the claims on appeal.
Regarding the petitions to reopen the claims for service connection,the Board concluded that new and material evidence had not been submitted since the previous denial of service connection in August 2006.
Regarding the claims for service connection,the Board determined that the evidence of record revealed no diagnosis of ALS or PTSD.
In addition, the Board found that the preponderance of the competent and credible evidence weighed against finding that [name redacted].
The Board's determinations regarding service connection and whether a claimant submitted new and material evidence 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 2 In November 2013, [name redacted].
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of evidence,account for evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide reasons for its rejection of material evidence favorable to the claimant.
The Secretary urges the Court to affirm this portion of the Board decision,arguing that the Board's finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted since the August 2006 decision was not clearly erroneous.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|No Current Disability
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 →