CAVC Case 20-3569: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2020-01-28 · MEREDITH, 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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHeartArthritis
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 ConditionPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
The spine examiner diagnosed degenerative arthritis of the spine,noted that the appellant's statements that he fell and injured his back in service and has complained of pain since military service [were] being considered in rendering [his] opinion, and provided a negative nexus opinion.
Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board erred when it relied on his separation report of medical history to find not credible his assertions that he experienced symptoms of his lumbar spine disability and psychiatric disorder in service.
Specifically, he contends that the Board failed to lay a proper foundation before relying on the absence of evidence for its credibility determination.
Additionally,the appellant asserts that the Board failed to make any findings regarding the duty to assist and that VA failed to satisfy its duty to assist because VA did not obtain,or attempt to obtain, records related to the 1970 VA back treatment that he mentioned at his March 2018 Board hearing.
The Secretary asserts that the Board's credibility determinations were not based on the absence of evidence but,rather,on the appellant's affirmative denial of problems as indicated in his report of medical history at separation.
As for the appellant's duty to assist argument,the Secretary contends that VA sought information from the appellant pursuant to the Board's July 2018 remand order,but because the appellant failed to respond,VA had no additional obligations to obtain the records.
In his reply brief, the appellant,in part, 3 argues that the Secretary's explanation for how VA satisfied its duty to assist in obtaining records related to his back disability cannot make up for the Board's failure to do so in the first instance.
Law It is the Board's responsibility,as factfinder, to determine the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence.
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 →