CAVC Case 18-4075: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2020-11-30 · GREENBERG
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
PsychiatricBackKneeSkinTDIUErectile DysfunctionProstate
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 DateReopenKnee ConditionIncreased RatingDic
Why It Was Decided This Way
Additionally,the Board found that a December 1999 rating decision denying service connection for right thigh hematoma residuals was final;found that the appellant submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim;and remanded the matter for further adjudication.
2 Further,the Board noted that in July 2016 the Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement (NOD)with a July 2015 rating action of the [VA regional office (RO)] and that [t]hese matters are being developed for appellate On December 13,2019, the Court issued a memorandum decision dismissing the right thigh hematoma claim for lack of jurisdiction and vacating and remanding the Board decision as to all other issues.
The Board therefore found that it lacked jurisdiction over the matters,and the appellant does not contend on appeal that the Board erred in its jurisdictional determination.
In the decision on appeal,the Board found that the December 1999 rating decision denying the appellant.
The appellant's claim was final, but that he had submitted new and material evidence dated in December 2001 (in the form of a VA outpatient treatment record)sufficient to reopen that decision.
5108, [i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed,the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.
To satisfy this requirement,the evidence must be both new and material.
5110(a),which governs the assignment of effective dates for awards of benefits, 3 The Court notes that,in the June 2012 decision, the RO did not address whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the previously disallowed claim for an infected hematoma secondary to the service- connected right knee disability.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
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 →