CAVC Case 19-4604: Respiratory
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2019-05-23 · JAQUITH, 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
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 Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board noted diagnoses of asthma in June and November of 2012 and found that the appellant had a present disability;stated that the appellant was presumed sound when he entered service;and assumed that his asthma manifested in service.
at 714-19,714 ( The parties agree remand is necessary because the Board erred when it did not ensure VA satisfied its duty to assist in providing an adequate examination and did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases to support its credibility determination.
bmitted on that issue was competent and credible and remanded the appellant's claim to obtain a new nexus opinion.
at 108-18,117 ( The Board finds more credible the May 2015 VA opinion that the Veteran's reports of in-service treatment do not reflect appropriate treatment for asthma or COPD,which the May 2016 private opinion did not address.
The JMR indicated that the Board's statement of reasons or bases failed to support its credibility determination about the appellant's alleged asthma attack during his Reserve service, because the appellant's Reserve service was not addressed by the May 2015 VA opinion.
The JMR rejected the Board's summary finding of a similar lack of credibility in appellant's statement that he suffered another asthmatic incident during a period of ACDUTRA � as similar to the lack of credibility (it found)in his statements about an asthmatic incident on active duty.
As in 2016,the Board found a similar lack of credibility in the statement that the Veteran suffered another asthmatic incident during a period of ACDUTRA,elaborating that inconsistent statements and unlikely reports regarding the Veteran's active duty undermine his credibility regarding his account of all events.
The appellant also argues that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for relying on his February 1972 lay denial of ever being treated for lung disease.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →