CAVC Case 20-3955: Knee
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2020-02-13 · 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
KneeHeadacheHeartTDIUArthritis
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 DateKnee ConditionIncreased Rating
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board denied entitlement to (1)a disability rating in excess of 10%for left knee meniscectomy under Diagnostic Code 5257; (2)a rating in excess of 10%for limitation of left knee extension,(3)a compensable rating for limitation of left knee flexion;(4)a rating in excess of 10%for partial meniscectomy of the right knee under Diagnostic Code 5257;and (5)a compensable rating for partial meniscectomy of the right knee based on limitation of flexion under Diagnostic Code 5260.
Turning to the August 2010 decision,the appellant first argued that,if the Board found no CUE in the February 1995 decision, the RO committed the same error in 2010.
Instead,he argues,the Board should have considered whether a preponderance of the evidence in existence in August 2010 supported separate ratings.
Finally,the appellant asserts that,having found CUE in the August 2010 RO decision,the Board erred in concluding that he was not entitled to 10% disability ratings for the left and right knees under Diagnostic Code 5260 because,contrary to the Board's finding, the record confirms that he has arthritis in both knees.
He argues that,once the Board found CUE in the August 2010 RO decision,the Board was required to issue a new decision that 'must consider all relevant evidence and laws.
Moreover, the Board found,even if those opinions had been in effect in February 1995, the evidence of record at that time did not establish x-ray evidence of arthritis or limitation of motion in the left knee .
Finally,the Board found that the appellant's argument that 7 the RO should have assigned a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 5257 or should have assigned a separate compensable rating under a different diagnostic code was tantamount [to an argument] as to how the evidence was weighed, which is not CUE.
The en banc Court in Perciavalle recently addressed precisely this question and held that the Board erred in finding that the VA [General Counsel]opinion constituted a change in interpretation whe[re]th[at]opinion was rendered based on the premise that no antecedent interpretation existed.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Preponderance Against|Cue
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 →