CAVC Case 19-3367: Knee
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2019-02-05 · FALVEY, 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
KneeHearing LossAnkleRespiratory
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 DateReopenIncreased RatingHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
We are first asked to decide whether the Board erred in upholding the propriety of the rating reduction for hearing loss.
We are next asked to decide whether the Board erred in failing to address the veteran's August 2017 statement of worsening hearing loss.
Because the Board erroneously limited the timeframe of the appeal and did not consider whether the veteran was entitled to an increased rating for hearing loss after May 26, 2017,we will also set aside and remand that matter for further adjudication.
We are next asked to decide whether the Board erred in finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen a claim for a right ankle disorder.
As the Secretary concedes,because the Board failed to discuss favorable evidence of a right ankle disorder,we will remand the matter for further adjudication.
Lastly,we are asked to decide whether the Board erred in finding that service department records received after the initial denial did not warrant reconsideration of the ankle, knee,and sinusitis claims.
The appellant argues that the Board erred in upholding the reduction of his hearing loss rating from 10%to 0%effective May 26,2017,because the evidence did not show improvement in his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work.
4 The Secretary bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the rating reduction was warranted.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →