CAVC Case 19-3131: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2019-04-04 · LAURER, 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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHearing LossShoulderSkinEyeArthritisHypertension
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 ConnectionReopenIncreased RatingHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the same decision,the Board found that there was new and material evidenceto reopen a claim of serviceconnection for arthritis of the bilateral hands.
Lastly,the Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and found that serviceconnection for a psychiatric disorder to establish eligibility to treatment under 38 U.
On appellant�s service-connection claim for a bilateral shoulder disability and his claims for higher ratings for hypertension,contact dermatitis,and an eye condition,the Secretary concedes that the Board failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist.
In considering appellant�s service -connected contact dermatitis,the Secretary also acknowledges that the Board erred in failingto discuss whether a ppellant�s prescribed medication s were systemic therapies,potentially warranting a higher rating.
4 And the Secretary admits that the Board failed to address whether the evidence that appellant experiences a flare -up of symptoms four times per year,covering more than 75%of his body,constituted a �material change,� warranting a new exam.
Appellant also argues that the Board failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to help obtain VA treatment records from April 2008 and from January 2015 onward.
7 Because those files do not appear in the record and because the Board neglected to address this purported deficiency,the Court cannot tell whether VA satisfied its duty to assist as to those records.
Thus,the Court will remand for the Board to provide adequate reasons or bases that address whether VA satisfied its duty to assist.
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 →