CAVC Case 19-7109: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2019-10-03 · SCHOELEN
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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricHeartTDIU
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
SMCService ConnectionTDIUIncreased RatingPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
He also opined that the appellant's in-service heart murmur was less likely than not related to his current heart disability.
In the October 2019 Board decision on appeal,the Board denied service connection for a heart disability, denied a rating greater than 70%for the appellant's PTSD,and denied entitlement to SMC.
Service Connection for a Heart Disability The Secretary's duty to assist includes,in appropriate cases,the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination.
[O]nce the Secretary undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim,even if not statutorily obligated to do so,he must provide an adequate one.
The Board must provide a written statement of the reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record;the statement must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide its reasons for rejecting any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
The Court reviews the Board's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →