CAVC Case 20-4401: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2020-05-21 · LAURER, 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
PTSDPsychiatricSleep ApneaSkinRadiculopathyProstate
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 DateReopenPTSDSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
7 The Secretary concedes that the Board failed to adequately support its decision because it did not reconcile conflicting evidence about whether appellant suffered additional disability and because the Board failed to perform necessary fact-finding on whether appellant consented to surgery,whether the surgery was emergent,or whether VA health care providers exercised reasonable care.
11 On the March 19,2019,decision,appellant first contends that the Board erred in denying his service connection claim for ischemic neuropathy of the upper left extremity because it failed to discuss favorable evidence,failed to obtain a VA compensation and pension (C P)opinion, and failed to obtain outstanding VA treatment records.
13 The Court accepts the Secretary �s concession and agrees that the Board failed to address favorable evidence.
Finally,the Court finds that the Board failed to adequately discuss whether appellant was entitled to a C P exam and instructs the Board to properly address that question on remand.
Next,appellant asserts that the Board erred in denying his direct service connection claim for PTSD because it failed to address favorable evidence and failed to obtain outstanding VA treatment records.
Appellant also argues that the Board erred when it found that he did not appeal an April 2011 rating decision denying his claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder as secondary to his section 1151 claim.
Finally,appellant says that the Board erred in refusingto reopen his previouslyfinal service connection claim for a skin condition because he did not submit new and material evidence.
20 Because appellant�s claim was originally denied because of the lack of a diagnosed skin condition, and because he submitted new evidence showing a diagnosis,the Board�s decision was clearly erroneous and contrary to the sole permissible view of the evidence.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|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 →