CAVC Case 19-4261: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2019-03-15 · BARTLEY, Chief 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
BackCervicalKneeHearing LossTinnitusShoulderHeadacheRespiratoryRadiculopathy
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 ConnectionKnee ConditionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant's claimed left knee condition was proximately due to or 3 Although a claim for service connection for a left knee condition was also pending,the September 2016 examination did not address the claimed left knee disability.
In the March 2019 decision on appeal,the Board denied the six issues on appeal.
The Board's determinations regarding service connection,the duty to assist,and adequacy of a medical examination are findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.
A factual finding 'is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of evidence,account for evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide reasons for its 5 rejection of material evidence favorable to the claimant.
COPD and Asbestosis In its decision,the Board denied service connection for COPD and asbestosis,finding that, although the appellant.
The appellant demonstrated a current respiratory disability (diagnosed as COPD with lung nodules)and was likely exposed to asbestos during service, the preponderance of the evidence was against linking the respiratory disability to service.
The appellant argues that the Board erred by failing to provide adequate reasons or bases for its determination that service connection for a respiratory disability was not warranted.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam|No Current Disability
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 →