CAVC Case 19-2158: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2019-01-10 · MEREDITH, 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
PTSDDepressionTinnitusSleep ApneaShoulderHeadacheHeartDiabetesGITDIU
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 DateReopenTDIUHearing LossPTSDSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
To the extent that the Board denied entitlement to an effective date earlier than February 4,2007,for the 50%rating for PTSD,the appellant raises no arguments challenging that decision;the Court considers that matter abandoned and will therefore dismiss it.
The Board denied the appellant's claim in July 2009,R.
During the March 2016 VA 1 Although the RO noted that the appellant's claim had become final and therefore new and material evidence was required to reopen it, see 38 U.
5108 (2018),the RO did not discuss whether such new and material evidence had been submitted, see R.
The examiner further determined that the appellant's condition was less likely than not related to service because the Veterans and Agent Orange Update 2012 indicates there is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine an[] association between essential hypertension and Agent Orange herbicide exposure.
Ultimately,the examiner opined that the appellant's OSA was not at least as likely as not related to or aggravated by service or a service- connected condition.
The appellant filed an NOD with that decision,arguing that VA failed to consider service connection based on exposure to Agent Orange.
4 In the decision on appeal,the Board noted that the appellant has already been granted benefits for the keloid on the right upper arm.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →