Case 19-0312: Back
DecisionVeterans-appeals decision document (court public records) · · Unknown
Conditions Claimed
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 |
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
BackRespiratoryEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
On ap- peal, the parties agreed to a joint motion to remand (“JMR”) because Todd’s 2014 opinion did not address cer- tain in-service risk factors for contracting hepatitis B and C that Ms.
Specifically, Todd did not address the higher than average occurrence of hepatitis among Vietnam veterans generally, Brass’s handling of dead bodies while in service, and his inocula- tions by jet gun.
Coleman argued that the Board’s de- cision was inadequate because it: (a) did not consider the 2011 opinion; (b) improperly assessed Brass’s credibility; and (c) did not address the 1972 record.
Coleman ad- ditionally argued that the Board failed to comply with the terms of the JMR because its 2018 decision did not address the adequacy of Todd’s 2014 opinion.
On March 16, 2020, the Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s 2018 decision, rea- soning that the Board had in fact considered the 2011 opin- ion, did not make improper credibility determinations, had expressly addressed the 1972 records, had substantial evi- dence for its findings, and had complied with the terms of the JMR.
102 by failing to provide Brass with the benefit of the doubt.
Coleman first asks us to review the Board’s factual finding that Brass’s death was not service-connected.
Coleman also argues that the Board erred by fail- ing to give her the “benefit of the doubt” in its decision- making.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not Service Connected|Preponderance Against
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 →