CAVC Case 19-2504: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2018-12-18 · PIETSCH, 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
BackCervicalHearing LossTinnitusShoulderHeadacheArthritisRadiculopathy
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
Back ConditionService ConnectionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant , through counsel,appeals a December 18,2018,Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied service connection for a neck condition and bilateral hearing loss.
Because the Board failed to fulfill its duty to assist and provide adequate reasons or bases, the Court will vacate the Board's decision and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
After reviewing the appellant's service treatment records,in an April 2014 decision the Board found some indication that the [appellant]may have current bilateral hearing loss .
Regarding the appellant's claimed neck disability,the Board found that the June 2011 VA examination did not address conflicting medical opinions of record or state 3 the significance .
The Board determined that an addendum opinion was necessary for the purpose of clarification.
In a January 2017 decision,the Board determined that the March 2016 VA audiological examination was inadequate because it is not apparent that the VA examiner considered the appellant's lay statements regarding the onset of his claimed hearing loss as related to the moving vehicle accident which occurred while in service.
ary service, the VA examiner who evaluated the appellant regarding his cervical spine condition had failed to consider Dr.
According to the examiner,based on the evidence provided,the appellant's hearing loss was not related to his military service.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Non Denial Outcome
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 →